- Home
- Processors
- Videocards
- Home
- / Videocards
- / Compare videocards
- / NVIDIA GeForce MX150 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX150 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
NVIDIA GeForce MX150 
vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX150
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 937 MHz vs 914 MHz
- Around 4% higher texture fill rate: 46.98 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 7.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
- Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 45.905 vs 42.396
- Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 495.238 vs 373.644
- Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 145.794 vs 139.158
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4330 vs 4148
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4330 vs 4148
| Specifications (specs) |
| Launch date | 17 May 2017 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz vs 914 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Benchmarks |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 45.905 vs 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 495.238 vs 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 145.794 vs 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4330 vs 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4330 vs 4148 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 1124 MHz vs 1038 MHz
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
- Around 28% better floating-point performance: 1,439 gflops vs 1,127 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2577 vs 2259
- Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 217 vs 213
- Around 2% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9744 vs 9584
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.54 vs 2.365
- Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 39.412 vs 38.965
- 3.4x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3350 vs 999
| Specifications (specs) |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz vs 1038 MHz |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 384 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,439 gflops vs 1,127 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2577 vs 2259 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 217 vs 213 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9744 vs 9584 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.54 vs 2.365 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 39.412 vs 38.965 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 vs 999 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX150 GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
| PassMark - G3D Mark | | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | | |
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX150 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2259 | 2577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 213 | 217 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9584 | 9744 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 45.905 | 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 495.238 | 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.365 | 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.965 | 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 145.794 | 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4330 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4330 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 999 | 3350 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX150 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
Essentials |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Code name | GP108 | GM107 |
| Launch date | 17 May 2017 | 13 March 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 875 | 797 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,127 gflops | 1,439 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 640 |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel / s | 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,800 million | 1,870 million |
| CUDA cores | 640 |
Video outputs and ports |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 |
| HDMI |
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Supplementary power connectors | None |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 |
API support |
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Memory |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB / s | 32 or 80 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
| Adaptive VSync |
| Ansel |
| BatteryBoost |
| CUDA |
| DSR |
| GameStream |
| GameWorks |
| GeForce Experience |
| GeForce ShadowPlay |
| GPU Boost |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder |
| Optimus |
| SLI |
Navigation
Differences Compare benchmarks Compare specifications (specs)
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX150 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs NVIDIAGeForce FX Go5650 NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs NVIDIAGeForce GTX 760 X2 NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs 
AMDRadeon HD 8650D IGP NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs AMDRadeon RX 550 NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 1030 (Desktop) NVIDIAGeForce MX150 vs AMDRadeon Vega 6 Mobile About
AskGeek.io - Compare processors and videocards to choose the best.
Sections
Links
Language
English
Deutsch
Française
Español
Português
Русский © 2025, AskGeek.io