GeForce MX150 vs FirePro V7900
GeForce MX150
Popular choices:
FirePro V7900
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 GeForce MX150 is positioned at rank 304 and the FirePro V7900 is on rank 279, so the FirePro V7900 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX150
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V7900
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce MX150 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2011). 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 V7900 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V7900 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX150.
| Insight | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (279mm) |
💎 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 $120), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 99.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+99.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($60) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) |
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 GeForce MX150 and FirePro V7900
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.
FirePro V7900
The FirePro V7900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,261 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce MX150 scores 2,252 and the FirePro V7900 reaches 2,261 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce MX150 is built on Pascal while the FirePro V7900 uses TeraScale 3, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX150) vs 1,280 (FirePro V7900). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150) vs 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V7900).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,252 | 2,261 |
| Architecture | Pascal | TeraScale 3 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1280+233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 1.856 TFLOPS+133% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 320 KB+122% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX150) vs 11.2 (FirePro V7900). Vulkan: 1.4 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1)+7% | 11.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce MX150) vs None (FirePro V7900). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs UVD 3.1. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 (GeForce MX150) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC (FirePro V7900).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | UVD 3.1 |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX150 draws 10W versus the FirePro V7900's 150W — a 175% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX150) vs 350W (FirePro V7900). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 100°C.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-93% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 279mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-25% | 100°C |
| Perf/Watt | 225.2+1391% | 15.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX150 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $60, while the FirePro V7900 launched at $999 and now averages $120. The GeForce MX150 costs 50% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 37.5 (GeForce MX150) vs 18.8 (FirePro V7900) — the GeForce MX150 offers 99.5% better value. The GeForce MX150 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2011).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | FirePro V7900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-85% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $60-50% | $120 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.5+99% | 18.8 |
| Codename | GP108 | Cayman |
| Release | May 17 2017 | May 24 2011 |
| Ranking | #657 | #656 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce MX150 and FirePro V7900
