GeForce MX150 vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce MX150
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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. The GeForce MX150 is positioned at rank #304 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX150
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce MX150 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 249.4% 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 | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-249.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+249.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $60), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 179.5% better value per dollar than the GeForce MX150.
| Insight | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+179.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($60) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) |
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 GeForce GTX 1650
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.
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce MX150 scores 2,252 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 249.4%. The GeForce MX150 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX150) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,252 | 7,869+249% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+274% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1665 MHz+60% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 896 KB+522% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce MX150 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 48 GB/s (GeForce MX150) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 166.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX150) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 128 GB/s+167% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX150) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce MX150) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC (Pascal) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 (GeForce MX150) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Pascal) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX150 draws 10W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX150) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Mobile vs None. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-87% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 225.2+115% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX150 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $60, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce MX150 costs 20% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 37.5 (GeForce MX150) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 179.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $60-20% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.5 | 104.9+180% |
| Codename | GP108 | TU117 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #657 | #323 |
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 GeForce GTX 1650
