GeForce MX150 vs Quadro K3100M
GeForce MX150
Popular choices:
Quadro K3100M
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 Quadro K3100M is on rank 48, so the Quadro K3100M 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 Quadro K3100M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K3100M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% 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 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 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 $400), it costs 85% less, resulting in a 557.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+557.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($60) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($400) |
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 Quadro K3100M
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.
Quadro K3100M
The Quadro K3100M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,283 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce MX150 scores 2,252 and the Quadro K3100M reaches 2,283 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce MX150 is built on Pascal while the Quadro K3100M uses Kepler, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX150) vs 768 (Quadro K3100M). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150) vs 1.084 TFLOPS (Quadro K3100M).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,252 | 2,283+1% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 768+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 1.084 TFLOPS+36% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 64+167% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB+125% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce MX150 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K3100M has 4 GB. The Quadro K3100M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX150 draws 10W versus the Quadro K3100M's 75W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX150) vs 350W (Quadro K3100M). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-87% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 225.2+641% | 30.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX150 costs 85% less ($340 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 37.5 (GeForce MX150) vs 5.7 (Quadro K3100M) — the GeForce MX150 offers 557.9% better value. The GeForce MX150 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce MX150 | Quadro K3100M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $60-85% | $400 |
| Performance per Dollar | 37.5+558% | 5.7 |
| Codename | GP108 | GK104 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | July 23 2013 |
| Ranking | #657 | #653 |
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 Quadro K3100M
