FirePro V8800 vs GeForce MX150
FirePro V8800
Popular choices:
GeForce MX150
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro V8800 is positioned at rank 319 and the GeForce MX150 is on rank 304, so the GeForce MX150 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V8800
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX150
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce MX150 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2010). The GeForce MX150 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro V8800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V8800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX150.
| Insight | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce MX150 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce MX150 holds the technical lead. Priced at $60 (vs $100), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 64.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+64.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro V8800 and GeForce MX150
FirePro V8800
The FirePro V8800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 26 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 690 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 74W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,281 points. Launch price was $479.
GeForce MX150
The GeForce MX150 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,252 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro V8800 scores 2,281 and the GeForce MX150 reaches 2,252 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro V8800 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GeForce MX150 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 800 (FirePro V8800) vs 384 (GeForce MX150). Raw compute: 1.104 TFLOPS (FirePro V8800) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150).
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,281+1% | 2,252 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+108% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.104 TFLOPS+38% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 144 KB+80% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro V8800 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce MX150 has 2 GB. The FirePro V8800 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro V8800) vs 512 KB (GeForce MX150) — the GeForce MX150 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (FirePro V8800) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX150). Vulkan: None vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2 | 12 (12_1)+7% |
| Vulkan | None | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FirePro V8800) vs No (GeForce MX150). Decoder: UVD 2.3 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro V8800) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 (GeForce MX150).
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | UVD 2.3 | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro V8800 draws 74W versus the GeForce MX150's 10W — a 152.4% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro V8800) vs 350W (GeForce MX150). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 74W | 10W-86% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 30.8 | 225.2+631% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro V8800 launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the GeForce MX150 launched at $150 and now averages $60. The GeForce MX150 costs 40% less ($40 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.8 (FirePro V8800) vs 37.5 (GeForce MX150) — the GeForce MX150 offers 64.5% better value. The GeForce MX150 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2010).
| Feature | FirePro V8800 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499 | $150-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $60-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.8 | 37.5+64% |
| Codename | Juniper | GP108 |
| Release | April 26 2010 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #780 | #657 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro V8800 and GeForce MX150
