GeForce MX150 vs Radeon R9 285

Place in the ranking	315	592
Place by popularity	not in top-100	99
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.76	no data
Power efficiency	6.25	40.36
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Tonga	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1792	384
Core clock speed	918 MHz	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	102.8	24.91
Floating-point processing power	3.29 TFLOPS	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	24

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	176.0 GB/s	40.1 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.170	1.2.131
CUDA	-	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 285 17.34
+194%

GeForce MX150 5.89

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R9 285 6680
+194%

GeForce MX150 2269

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570
+146%

GeForce MX150 3488

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	75−80 +188%	26 −188%
1440p	85−90 +183%	30 −183%
4K	55−60 +175%	20 −175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.32	no data
1440p	2.93	no data
4K	4.53	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +0%	19 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	26 +0%	26 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +0%	21 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +0%	80 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +0%	100 +0%
Metro Exodus	23 +0%	23 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +0%	36 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +0%	21 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +0%	7 +0%
Far Cry 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +0%	9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +0%	71 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +0%	100 +0%
Metro Exodus	17 +0%	17 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +0%	21 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +0%	52 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +0%	7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +0%	14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +0%	16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +0%	16 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how R9 285 and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

R9 285 is 188% faster in 1080p
R9 285 is 183% faster in 1440p
R9 285 is 175% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 70 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.34	5.89
Recency	2 September 2014	17 May 2017
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	10 Watt

R9 285 has a 194.4% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX150, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1800% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while GeForce MX150 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.