GeForce GTX 295 vs GeForce MX150
When comparing GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce MX150, we look primarily at benchmarks and game tests. But it is not only about the numbers. Often you can find third-party models with higher clock speeds, better cooling, or a customizable RGB lighting. Not all of them will have all the features you need. Another thing to consider is the port selection. Most graphics cards have at least one DisplayPort and HDMI interface, but some monitors require DVI. Before you buy, check the TDP of the graphics card - this characteristic will help you estimate the consumption of the graphics card. You may even have to upgrade your PSU to meet its requirements. An important factor when choosing between GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce MX150 is the price. Does the additional cost justify the performance hit? Our comparison should help you make the right decision.
GeForce GTX 295
GeForce MX150 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce MX150 is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with GeForce MX150 here:
Main Specs
GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce MX150 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 10 Watt |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | None |
Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI | No outputs |
Check Price |
- GeForce GTX 295 has 2790% more power consumption, than GeForce MX150.
- GeForce GTX 295 is connected by PCIe 2.0 x16, and GeForce MX150 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.
- GeForce GTX 295 has 1788 GB more memory, than GeForce MX150.
- GeForce GTX 295 is used in Desktops, and GeForce MX150 - in Laptops.
- GeForce GTX 295 is build with Tesla 2.0 architecture, and GeForce MX150 - with Pascal.
- Core clock speed of GeForce MX150 is 226 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 295.
- GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and GeForce MX150 - by 14 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of GeForce MX150 is 5009 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 295.
Game benchmarks
high / 1080p | 3−4 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
low / 720p | 14−16 | 24−27 |
medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 14−16 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 150% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 18−20 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 16−18 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 2−3 |
low / 720p | 18−20 | 40−45 |
medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 21−24 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Battlefield 5 is 145% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
high / 1080p | 30−35 | − |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce MX150 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
low / 768p | 120−130 | 180−190 |
medium / 768p | 90−95 | 150−160 |
ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 80−85 |
QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 45−50 |
4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 30−33 |
high / 768p | 65−70 | 120−130 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 67% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 80−85 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 30−35 |
medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 2% more, than GeForce MX150. | ||
low / 768p | 75−80 | 100−110 |
medium / 768p | 50−55 | 80−85 |
ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 50−55 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Dota 2 is 53% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 5−6 | 14−16 |
ultra / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 5−6 |
low / 720p | 14−16 | 30−35 |
medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 14−16 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Far Cry 5 is 142% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 21−24 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 50−55 | 85−90 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 40−45 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Fortnite is 86% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 7−8 | 20−22 |
ultra / 1080p | − | 16−18 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 6−7 |
low / 720p | 20−22 | 40−45 |
medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 21−24 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Forza Horizon 4 is 133% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 70−75 |
medium / 768p | − | 65−70 |
high / 1080p | 8−9 | 21−24 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 10−11 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
medium / 720p | 40−45 | − |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Grand Theft Auto V is 75% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 3−4 | 7−8 |
ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 6−7 |
4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
low / 720p | 8−9 | 21−24 |
medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 10−11 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Metro Exodus is 175% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 85−90 | 100−110 |
high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 95−100 |
medium / 1080p | 85−90 | 100−110 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Minecraft is 20% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 20−22 |
ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 16−18 |
low / 720p | 27−30 | 45−50 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 21−24 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 61% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 9−10 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 8−9 | 21−24 |
medium / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 100% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 16−18 | 40−45 |
medium / 768p | 12−14 | 27−30 |
high / 1080p | 6−7 | 14−16 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 9−10 |
4K / 2160p | − | 7−8 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 130% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 70−75 | 95−100 |
medium / 768p | 35−40 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 27−30 |
high / 768p | 30−35 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce MX150 in World of Tanks is 46% more, than GeForce GTX 295. |
Full Specs
GeForce GTX 295 | GeForce MX150 | |
Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Pascal |
Code name | GT200B | N17S-G1 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 8 January 2009 | 16 May 2017 |
Pipelines | 240 | 384 |
Core clock speed | 1242 MHz | 1468 MHz |
Boost Clock | 1532 MHz | |
Transistor count | 1,400 million | 1,800 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 24.91 |
Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 1,127 gflops |
Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 6008 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 40.1 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | |
DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | + | 6.1 |
CUDA cores | 480 | |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
SLI options | + | |
Multi monitor support | + | |
HDMI | + | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | |
Laptop size | large | |
CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | |
Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | |
Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | |
High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | |
Check Price |
Similar compares
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon HD 4850 X2
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R9 M275
- GeForce MX150 vs Radeon HD 4850 X2
- GeForce MX150 vs Radeon R9 M275
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Iris Graphics 540
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 Ryzen 2000 3000
- GeForce MX150 vs Iris Graphics 540
- GeForce MX150 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 Ryzen 2000 3000