GeForce GTS 450 vs GTX 295

Place in the ranking	757	732
Place by popularity	not in top-100	100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	0.65
Power efficiency	0.75	2.22
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT200B	GF106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (16 years ago)	13 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	$129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTS 450 has 364% better value for money than GTX 295.

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	480	192
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	783 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	106 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	100 °C
Texture fill rate	46.08	25.06
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	0.6013 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	80	32

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	no data	PCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	210 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	1 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1804 (3608 data rate) MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	57.7 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no data

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	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	Internal

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.2
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

GTX 295 3.14

GTS 450 3.42
+8.9%

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.

GTX 295 1206

GTS 450 1315
+9%

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	27−30 −11.1%	30 +11.1%
Full HD	30−35 −23.3%	37 +23.3%
1200p	24−27 −12.5%	27 +12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

16.67

−378%

3.49
+378%

GTS 450 has 378% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Elden Ring	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Elden Ring	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
World of Tanks	86 +0%	86 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
World of Tanks	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Valorant	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how GTX 295 and GTS 450 compete in popular games:

GTS 450 is 11% faster in 900p
GTS 450 is 23% faster in 1080p
GTS 450 is 13% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.14	3.42
Recency	8 January 2009	13 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	106 Watt

GTX 295 has a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTS 450, on the other hand, has a 8.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 172.6% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce GTS 450.

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