GeForce GT 630 vs GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 and GeForce GT 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTS 450 outperforms GT 630 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 732 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | 100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.65 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 2.22 | 1.86 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 450 has 713% better value for money than GT 630.
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 | 192 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 12.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 0.311 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 30
+114%
| 14−16
−114%
|
| Full HD | 37
+106%
| 18−20
−106%
|
| 1200p | 27
+125%
| 12−14
−125%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49
+59.3%
| 5.56
−59.3%
|
- GTS 450 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 86
+115%
|
40−45
−115%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how GTS 450 and GT 630 compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 114% faster in 900p
- GTS 450 is 106% faster in 1080p
- GTS 450 is 125% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.42 | 1.76 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 15 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 65 Watt |
GTS 450 has a 94.3% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 63.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
