Mx 150 vs 860m: MX150 vs GTX 860M [27-Benchmark Showdown]

23 июля, 2021

MX150 vs GTX 860M [27-Benchmark Showdown]

General info


GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking 442 512
Value for money 0.96 1.59
Architecture Maxwell (2014−2018) Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name N15P-GX N17S-G1
Market segment Laptop Laptop
Release date 12 March 2014 (9 years old) 16 May 2017 (6 years old)
Current price $875 $1049

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX150 has 66% better value for money than GTX 860M.

Technical specs


General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results.

Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores 640 384
CUDA cores 1152 or 640 no data
Core clock speed 797 MHz 1468 MHz
Boost clock speed 915 MHz 1532 MHz
Number of transistors 1,870 million 1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt (10 — 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate 43.40 24.91
Floating-point performance 1,389 gflops 1,127 gflops

Size and compatibility


Information on GeForce GTX 860M and GeForce MX150 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it’s notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size medium sized large
Bus support PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 no data
Interface MXM-B (3.0) PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors None None
SLI options + no data

Memory


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

Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 4 GB
Standard memory configuration GDDR5 no data
Memory bus width 128 Bit 64 Bit
Memory clock speed Up to 2500 MHz 6008 MHz
Memory bandwidth 80. 0 GB/s 40.1 GB/s
Shared memory — —

Video outputs and ports


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 outputs No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support Up to 3840×2160 no data
LVDS signal support Up to 1920×1200 no data
VGA аnalog display support Up to 2048×1536 no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support Up to 3840×2160 no data
HDMI + no data
HDCP content protection + no data
7. 1 channel HD audio on HDMI + no data
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming + no data

Technologies


Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder + no data
Optimus + no data
Ansel + no data

API support


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

DirectX 12 (11_0) 12 (12_1)
Shader Model 5.1 6.4
OpenGL 4.5 4.6
OpenCL 1. 1 1.2
Vulkan 1.1.126 1.2.131
CUDA + 6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance


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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 860M7.82


+34.1%



GeForce MX150
5.83

GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 34% in our combined benchmark results.

    Passmark

    This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.

    Benchmark coverage: 25%

    GTX 860M3056


    +34.1%



    GeForce MX150
    2279

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 34% in Passmark.

    3DMark Vantage Performance

    3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280×1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

    Benchmark coverage: 16%

    GTX 860M19216


    +74. 8%



    GeForce MX150
    10992

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 75% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

    3DMark 11 Performance GPU

    3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280×720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

    Benchmark coverage: 16%

    GTX 860M4902


    +9.1%



    GeForce MX150
    4494

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 9% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

    3DMark Fire Strike Score

    Benchmark coverage: 13%

    GTX 860M3661


    +17. 9%



    GeForce MX150
    3104

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 18% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.

    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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920×1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

    Benchmark coverage: 13%

    GTX 860M3904


    +11.9%



    GeForce MX150
    3488

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 12% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

    3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

    Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280×720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

    Benchmark coverage: 13%

    GTX 860M27961


    +46.1%



    GeForce MX150
    19132

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 46% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

    GeekBench 5 OpenCL

    Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

    Benchmark coverage: 9%

    GTX 860M9966


    +6%



    GeForce MX150
    9403

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 6% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

    3DMark Ice Storm GPU

    Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280×720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

    Benchmark coverage: 8%


    GTX 860M
    215144

    GeForce MX150223740


    +4%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 4% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

    GeekBench 5 Vulkan

    Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

    Benchmark coverage: 5%

    GTX 860M10627


    +31.2%



    GeForce MX150
    8099

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 31% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

    GeekBench 5 CUDA

    Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU’s processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

    Benchmark coverage: 4%

    GTX 860M11144


    +13.7%



    GeForce MX150
    9799

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 14% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

    Unigine Heaven 3.0

    This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

    Benchmark coverage: 4%

    GTX 860M50


    +18. 4%



    GeForce MX150
    42

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 18% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 maya-04

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    GTX 860M
    23

    GeForce MX15026


    +12.9%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 13% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 maya-04.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 sw-03

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    GTX 860M
    12

    GeForce MX15024


    +109%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 109% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 sw-03.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 snx-02

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    GTX 860M
    2

    GeForce MX1503


    +72. 2%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 72% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 snx-02.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 mediacal-01

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    GTX 860M
    7

    GeForce MX15010


    +58.5%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 58% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 mediacal-01.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 catia-04

    Benchmark coverage: 3%


    GTX 860M
    15

    GeForce MX15017


    +11.2%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 catia-04.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 creo-01

    Benchmark coverage: 3%

    GTX 860M23


    +107%



    GeForce MX150
    11

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 107% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 creo-01.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 showcase-01

    Benchmark coverage: 3%

    GTX 860M17


    +23.7%



    GeForce MX150
    14

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 showcase-01.

    SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 energy-01

    Benchmark coverage: 3%

    GTX 860M9


    +1640%



    GeForce MX150
    1

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 1640% in SPECviewperf 12 — specvp12 energy-01.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Showcase

    Benchmark coverage: 2%

    GTX 860M17


    +23.7%



    GeForce MX150
    14

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 — Showcase.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Maya

    This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

    Benchmark coverage: 2%


    GTX 860M
    23

    GeForce MX15026


    +12.9%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 13% in SPECviewperf 12 — Maya.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Catia

    Benchmark coverage: 2%


    GTX 860M
    15

    GeForce MX15017


    +11.2%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 — Catia.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Solidworks

    Benchmark coverage: 2%


    GTX 860M
    12

    GeForce MX15024


    +109%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 109% in SPECviewperf 12 — Solidworks.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Siemens NX

    Benchmark coverage: 2%


    GTX 860M
    2

    GeForce MX1503


    +72.2%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 72% in SPECviewperf 12 — Siemens NX.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Creo

    Benchmark coverage: 2%

    GTX 860M23


    +107%



    GeForce MX150
    11

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 107% in SPECviewperf 12 — Creo.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Medical

    Benchmark coverage: 2%


    GTX 860M
    7

    GeForce MX15010


    +58.5%


    MX150 outperforms GTX 860M by 58% in SPECviewperf 12 — Medical.

    SPECviewperf 12 — Energy

    Benchmark coverage: 2%

    GTX 860M8.7


    +1640%



    GeForce MX150
    0.5

    GTX 860M outperforms MX150 by 1640% in SPECviewperf 12 — Energy.

    Mining hashrates


    Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 860M and GeForce MX150. Usually measured in megahashes per second.


    Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) 163 Mh/s no data

    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:

    900p 91 no data
    Full HD 37
    		27
    1440p no data 24
    4K 13
    −46. 2%

    		19
    +46.2%


    Performance in popular games

    This is how GTX 860M and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

    1080p resolution:

    • GTX 860M is 37% faster than GeForce MX150

    4K resolution:

    • GeForce MX150 is 46.2% faster than GTX 860M

    Here’s the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

    • in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 860M is 400% faster than the GeForce MX150.
    • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 50% faster than the GTX 860M.

    All in all, in popular games:

    • GTX 860M is ahead in 53 tests (85%)
    • GeForce MX150 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
    • there’s a draw in 5 tests (8%)

    Advantages and disadvantages








    Performance score 7. 82 5.83
    Recency 12 March 2014 16 May 2017
    Memory bus width 128 64
    Pipelines / CUDA cores 640 384
    Memory bandwidth 80 40.1
    Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
    Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

    The GeForce GTX 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

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