Quadro NVS 450 vs GeForce MX450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX450 with Quadro NVS 450, including specs and performance data.
MX450 outperforms NVS 450 by a whopping 5487% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 470 | 1423 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 26.70 | 0.34 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | G98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $163.14 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 896 | 8 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 480 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 3.840 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 0.0192 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 ×2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 ×2 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | 11.2 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 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.
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:
| Full HD | 29 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 17 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 25 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+8700%
|
1−2
−8700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 49 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 61
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+6850%
|
2−3
−6850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 88
+8700%
|
1−2
−8700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 39 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 81
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+6900%
|
1−2
−6900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+10100%
|
1−2
−10100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.38 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 1 August 2020 | 11 November 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce MX450 has a 5486.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX450 is a notebook card while Quadro NVS 450 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
