
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX150

GeForce GTX 1650
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX150
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 GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+249.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-249.4%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑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 | 📏 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 GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+179.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅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 GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce MX150

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.

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
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce MX150's 2,252 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 249.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce MX150 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce MX150). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX150). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+249% | 2,252 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+133% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+274% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+60% | 1038 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+133% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+522% | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce MX150 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 GB/s (GeForce MX150) — a 166.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce MX150) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+167% | 48 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX150). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs No (GeForce MX150). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 (GeForce MX150).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | No |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,VP9,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce MX150's 10W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce MX150). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 10W-87% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 225.2+115% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce MX150 launched at $150 and now averages $60. The GeForce MX150 costs 20% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 37.5 (GeForce MX150) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 179.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX150 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $60-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+180% | 37.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | GP108 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #657 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












