GeForce MX450 vs 310M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M and GeForce MX450, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 310M
2010
Up to 1 GB DDR3, 14 Watt
0.31

MX450 outperforms 310M by a whopping 3023% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1323460
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.5226.53
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 August 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores16896
Core clock speed606 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1575 MHz
Number of transistors260 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate4.848100.8
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS3.226 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs432
TMUs864

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s64.03 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 310M 0.31
GeForce MX450 9.68
+3023%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 310M 118
GeForce MX450 3731
+3062%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 310M 1123
GeForce MX450 22831
+1933%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD0−128
1440p0−118
4K0−130

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
32
+1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1000%
22
+1000%
Hitman 3 4−5
−650%
30
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−563%
50−55
+563%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−700%
30−35
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−236%
94
+236%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Hitman 3 4−5
−625%
29
+625%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−563%
50−55
+563%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−900%
40
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−189%
24−27
+189%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−218%
89
+218%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−300%
8
+300%
Hitman 3 4−5
−525%
25
+525%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−200%
24
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−650%
30
+650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−122%
20
+122%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+300%
7
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 5−6
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
26
+1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 4−5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
+0%
10
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+0%
45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7
+0%
7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+0%
18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 300% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GeForce MX450 is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 9.68
Recency 10 January 2010 1 August 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 25 Watt

GeForce 310M has 78.6% lower power consumption.

GeForce MX450, on the other hand, has a 3022.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M
NVIDIA GeForce MX450
GeForce MX450

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 454 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1321 vote

Rate GeForce MX450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.