Friday, May 26th 2017

NVIDIA Announces GeForce MX150 Laptops: Supercharged For Work and Play

Remember that MX150 mobile graphics card we covered recently? NVIDIA has just let the cat out of the bag, with an announcement that seemingly confirms the specs we were expecting. NVIDIA is selling this mobile GPU's space as the expected IGP-upgrade, citing up to 3x superior performance-per-Watt compared to previous-generation Maxwell-based GeForce 940MX laptops. In other words, GeForce MX150 enables thinner laptops that run applications faster while sipping less power.
NVIDIA says that MX150 graphics fly through photo editing tasks, cropping, resizing and enhancing photos up to 2.5x faster than integrated GPUs. Editing, remastering and rendering in popular GPU-accelerated applications is also up to 4x faster than on a basic laptop equipped solely with integrated graphics. NVIDIA is positioning its new GeForce MX150 laptops as up to 4x faster than basic laptops with integrated graphics in popular online games. Specs-wise, it retains the GT 1030's 384 CUDA cores (the same as the 940MX), bringing 16 nm tech to entry-level graphics (the 940MX leveraged the 28 nm process.) These are now solely paired with GDDR5 memory, whereas the 940MX could paired with GDDR5 or GDDR3, and most of its graphics performance increases come from the higher clocks allowed by NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, as well as the increase in ROPs that transition entails.
Add your own comment

16 Comments on NVIDIA Announces GeForce MX150 Laptops: Supercharged For Work and Play

#1
Caring1
Playing catch up to APU's.
Posted on Reply
#2
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Caring1 said:
Playing catch up to APU's.
Surpassing them, actually, if it's indeed a GT1030.

The name is confusing though. If it's essentially a GT1030, why not call it that, or GT10whatever and use the current naming scheme for their other products?
Posted on Reply
#3
Dj-ElectriC
I wonder how this chip comperes to the GTX 950M
Posted on Reply
#4
blibba
Frick said:
Surpassing them, actually, if it's indeed a GT1030.

The name is confusing though. If it's essentially a GT1030, why not call it that, or GT10whatever and use the current naming scheme for their other products?
Perhaps we're getting a sneak peak of a new naming scheme.
Posted on Reply
#5
Manu_PT
I think the naming is because they wanted to stay away from the comparasions against their GTX1050/1050ti offers. "Oh is just a 1030, way weaker than 1050 and 1050ti for gaming". With a MX150 naming and on cheaper laptops, is more like "it has the new MX150 budget graphics that run League of Legends and Dota 2 with good frames! and it is good for photoshop aswell!"

That´s my assumption, I could be completly wrong

Still, this is a very good GPU compared to the previous low budget offerings. Look at power consumption and performance added compared to 940mx
Posted on Reply
#6
medi01
Frick said:
Surpassing them, actually, if it's indeed a GT1030.

The name is confusing though. If it's essentially a GT1030, why not call it that, or GT10whatever and use the current naming scheme for their other products?
That would not be confusing enough.
Posted on Reply
#7
kruk
Manu_PT said:
Still, this is a very good GPU compared to the previous low budget offerings. Look at power consumption and performance added compared to 940mx
Where do you see any concrete numbers other than typical marketing BS?

940MX is Maxwell 1.0 and MX150 is Pascal, both have the same number of CUDA cores (384). We know that Pascal can outperform Maxwell mostly because of the higher clocks (1050 Ti vs 950). We know that the desktop version of GT1030 uses 30W at at 1468 MHz, that 940MX uses 15-25W at 1242 MHz. This card should thus be like ~20% faster than the GDDR5 version of 940MX and it would use ~20W. Very good? No. Slightly better? Yes. Much better power consumption? Maybe 1.5X perf/watt, but there is no chance that number is 3 unless the MX150 is slower than 940MX ...
Posted on Reply
#8
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
kruk said:
Where do you see any concrete numbers other than typical marketing BS?

940MX is Maxwell 1.0 and MX150 is Pascal, both have the same number of CUDA cores (384). We know that Pascal can outperform Maxwell mostly because of the higher clocks (1050 Ti vs 950). We know that the desktop version of GT1030 uses 30W at at 1468 MHz, that 940MX uses 15-25W at 1242 MHz. This card should thus be like ~20% faster than the GDDR5 version of 940MX and it would use ~20W. Very good? No. Slightly better? Yes. Much better power consumption? Maybe 1.5X perf/watt, but there is no chance that number is 3 unless the MX150 is slower than 940MX ...
One good thing is its GDDR5 only (finally). I'm actually excited for reviews! If they manage to put them in €~500 laptops, that would be amazing.

What I'm really excited about though is Zen APUs.

All this builds on these things being put into <14" laptops, obviosly.
Posted on Reply
#9
Manu_PT
kruk said:
Where do you see any concrete numbers other than typical marketing BS?

940MX is Maxwell 1.0 and MX150 is Pascal, both have the same number of CUDA cores (384). We know that Pascal can outperform Maxwell mostly because of the higher clocks (1050 Ti vs 950). We know that the desktop version of GT1030 uses 30W at at 1468 MHz, that 940MX uses 15-25W at 1242 MHz. This card should thus be like ~20% faster than the GDDR5 version of 940MX and it would use ~20W. Very good? No. Slightly better? Yes. Much better power consumption? Maybe 1.5X perf/watt, but there is no chance that number is 3 unless the MX150 is slower than 940MX ...
Tell me how many laptops had the gDDR5 version. 95% of them had DDR3. The performance gap will be very good, don´t need numbers just look at the specifications and arch. Also with such improvement and only consuming 30w compared to the previous 20w, is good aswell. The way you talk make it seem this gpu isn´t that better than a 940mx when in reality it will basically rape it. Its performance will be very similar to a 750ti. Not an amazing card by any means, but still the most used card on Steam (according to their hardware stats), and until recently was the best budget card. It is decent enough specially for budget laptops. And let´s not forget how high Pascal can clock, something people keep forgetting. A GTX1060 on Laptop has 1600mhz clocks, but the card is constantly at 1800mhz with Gpu boost. Same will happen with this MX150
Posted on Reply
#10
kruk
Manu_PT said:
Tell me how many laptops had the gDDR5 version. 95% of them had DDR3.
Not a single word in those slides says they are comparing MX150 to DDR3 version of 940MX.

Manu_PT said:
The way you talk make it seem this gpu isn´t that better than a 940mx when in reality it will basically rape it.
If we compare it to 940MX with DDR3 it's going to be max 40% faster, if we compare it to GDDR5 version it is probably 20% faster. And remember, I'm speculating that they will go for 20W TDP, if they go lower, the performance difference will get smaller.

Manu_PT said:
Its performance will be very similar to a 750ti.
Even the desktop version of 1030 can't match 750 Ti.



Manu_PT said:
And let´s not forget how high Pascal can clock, something people keep forgetting. A GTX1060 on Laptop has 1600mhz clocks, but the card is constantly at 1800mhz with Gpu boost. Same will happen with this MX150
Desktop 1030 max boost is 1468 MHz it could be much lower for the mobile GPU especially if they are aiming for max perf/watt.

Stop overhyping this card. Thanks!
Posted on Reply
#11
Manu_PT
kruk said:
Not a single word in those slides says they are comparing MX150 to DDR3 version of 940MX.



If we compare it to 940MX with DDR3 it's going to be max 40% faster, if we compare it to GDDR5 version it is probably 20% faster. And remember, I'm speculating that they will go for 20W TDP, if they go lower, the performance difference will get smaller.



Even the desktop version of 1030 can't match 750 Ti.





Desktop 1030 max boost is 1468 MHz it could be much lower for the mobile GPU especially if they are aiming for max perf/watt.

Stop overhyping this card. Thanks!
You sure? Better take a look at a legit benchmark comparison. The card is almost same as a gtx750ti, loosing in some games for 3% to 5% and raping it on DX12 titles. And it wrecks RX550 aswell. So yeah, considering the price tag and power consumption, the hype is justified. Worth mentioning its overclock capabilities aswell, easy as moving a slider to the right on MSI afterburner. The card has good temperatures. Is a very good budget card, I keep saying it. And almost no laptop had the 940mx gddr5 version, market needed a low budget GPU badly, for laptops. This is an actual improvement in every aspect.

Also let´s not forget the 4k streaming capabilites of Pascal. GPU on laptops aren´t for gaming purposes only.

Posted on Reply
#12
Rivage
MX150? Makes me remember MX440 :D
Posted on Reply
#13
Prince Valiant
Frick said:
One good thing is its GDDR5 only (finally). I'm actually excited for reviews! If they manage to put them in €~500 laptops, that would be amazing.

What I'm really excited about though is Zen APUs.

All this builds on these things being put into <14" laptops, obviosly.
It would indeed, though it seems unlikely.
Posted on Reply
#14
jabbadap
kruk said:
...

Desktop 1030 max boost is 1468 MHz it could be much lower for the mobile GPU especially if they are aiming for max perf/watt.

...
Well that's not true, max boost is never marketed. That is marketed boost clocks which are not the same as max boost clock set in bios. One can get max boosts out by taking off limiting factories like temperature and power limits and look where clocks are in 3D application. Which I believe W1zzard does in his graphics card reviews. I.E. latest GTX1050ti review(marketed boost clock for gtx1050ti is 1392 MHz which gpu-z pic shows in that review):
Maximum overclock of our sample is 2240 MHz on the memory (28% overclock) and +279 MHz to the GPU's base clock, which increases maximum Boost from 1746 MHz to 2025 MHz (16% overclock).
Posted on Reply
#15
medi01
kruk said:
Not a single word in those slides says they are comparing MX150 to DDR3 version of 940MX.
Not sure if serious.
1060 was 25% faster than 480, according to nVidia slides.
Not sure which mem either of the cards was supposed to use, though.
Posted on Reply
#16
9700 Pro
Rivage said:
MX150? Makes me remember MX440 :D
Same here, I had couple of GF2 MX & GF4 MX cards back in the day. :toast:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment