GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GTS 150M by a whopping 588% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 488 | 1033 |
| Place by popularity | 28 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.35 | 2.00 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 12.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51 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 | no data | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 23
+667%
| 3−4
−667%
|
| 1440p | 17
+750%
| 2−3
−750%
|
| 4K | 9
+800%
| 1−2
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Elden Ring | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Valorant | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Elden Ring | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Valorant | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| World of Tanks | 48
+71.4%
|
27−30
−71.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+407%
|
14−16
−407%
|
| Valorant | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Elden Ring | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Valorant | 39
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Elden Ring | 6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 667% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 750% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 4700% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 150M is 60% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 38 tests (86%)
- GTS 150M is ahead in 3 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.01 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 3 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 587.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 150M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
