GeForce MX450 vs 315M

Place in the ranking	1332	461
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.48	26.82
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT218	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 January 2011 (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 cores	16	896
Core clock speed	606 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	4.848	100.8
Floating-point processing power	0.03878 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	64

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 support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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 type	GDDR3	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	64.03 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 Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
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 315M 0.30

GeForce MX450 9.74
+3147%

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 315M 115

GeForce MX450 3745
+3157%

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 315M 1109

GeForce MX450 22831
+1960%

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 HD	0−1	29
1440p	0−1	17
4K	0−1	26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1500%	32 +1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −900%	50 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1025%	45 +1025%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −450%	11 +450%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −867%	58 +867%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −700%	40 +700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −25%	5 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −480%	27−30 +480%
World of Tanks	12−14 −1075%	140−150 +1075%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6 +200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −500%	30 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−2250%

45−50
+2250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Valorant	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −2700%	27−30 +2700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	9−10
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 −113%	32 +113%
Valorant	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	34 +0%	34 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	54 +0%	54 +0%
Elden Ring	28 +0%	28 +0%
Fortnite	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	38 +0%	38 +0%
Metro Exodus	16 +0%	16 +0%
Valorant	22 +0%	22 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	81 +0%	81 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	11 +0%	11 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 +0%	11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
World of Tanks	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +0%	18 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Elden Ring	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Fortnite	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 2700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX450 is ahead in 31 test (50%)
there's a draw in 31 test (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.30	9.74
Recency	5 January 2011	1 August 2020
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce 315M has 78.6% lower power consumption.

GeForce MX450, on the other hand, has a 3146.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

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