Quadro NVS 320M vs GeForce GTS 450

Place in the ranking	728	1222
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.66	no data
Power efficiency	2.25	1.88
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF106	G84
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	13 September 2010 (14 years ago)	9 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$129	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	32
Core clock speed	783 MHz	575 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	106 Watt	20 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	100 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	25.06	9.200
Floating-point processing power	0.6013 TFLOPS	0.0736 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
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).

Laptop size	no data	large
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0 x 16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-HE
Length	210 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data
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	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1804 (3608 data rate) MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	57.7 GB/s	22.4 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	Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI	No outputs
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	+	1.1

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.

GTS 450 3.42
+533%

NVS 320M 0.54

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.

GTS 450 1318
+534%

NVS 320M 208

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 +650%	4−5 −650%
Full HD	38 +533%	6−7 −533%
1200p	27 +575%	4−5 −575%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.39

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+800%

1−2

−800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

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	0−1
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 NVS 320M compete in popular games:

GTS 450 is 650% faster in 900p
GTS 450 is 533% faster in 1080p
GTS 450 is 575% faster in 1200p

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 450 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTS 450 surpassed NVS 320M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.42	0.54
Recency	13 September 2010	9 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	106 Watt	20 Watt

GTS 450 has a 533.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 320M, on the other hand, has 430% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 320M is a mobile workstation one.

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