Quadro CX vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Quadro CX, including specs and performance data.
GTS 450 outperforms CX by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 723 | 829 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.57 | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | 1.14 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 450 has 1800% better value for money than Quadro CX.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 38.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 76.8 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, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| 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) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.3 |
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.
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
+42.9%
| 21−24
−42.9%
|
| Full HD | 38
+40.7%
| 27−30
−40.7%
|
| 1200p | 27
+50%
| 18−20
−50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GTS 450 and Quadro CX compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 43% faster in 900p
- GTS 450 is 41% faster in 1080p
- GTS 450 is 50% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.43 | 2.45 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 11 November 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTS 450 has a 40% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 41.5% lower power consumption.
Quadro CX, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro CX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while Quadro CX is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
