Quadro NVS 450 vs GeForce RTX 3090

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3090 with Quadro NVS 450, including specs and performance data.

RTX 3090
2020
24 GB GDDR6X, 350 Watt
68.58
+40241%

RTX 3090 outperforms NVS 450 by a whopping 40241% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking291422
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.97no data
Power efficiency13.590.33
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGA102G98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2020 (4 years ago)11 November 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 $163.14

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RTX 3090 and NVS 450 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores104968 ×2
Core clock speed1395 MHz480 MHz
Boost clock speed1695 MHzno data
Number of transistors28,300 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate556.03.840 ×2
Floating-point processing power35.58 TFLOPS0.0192 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs1124 ×2
TMUs3288 ×2
Tensor Cores328no data
Ray Tracing Cores82no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length336 mmno data
Width3-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 12-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6XGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount24 GB256 MB ×2
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed1219 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth936.2 GB/s11.2 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.54.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2N/A
CUDA8.51.1
DLSS+-

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.

RTX 3090 68.58
+40241%
NVS 450 0.17

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.

RTX 3090 26683
+40329%
NVS 450 66

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 HD197-0−1
1440p131-0−1
4K87-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.61no data
1440p11.44no data
4K17.23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 331 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 220 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 209 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 262 0−1
Battlefield 5 172 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 188 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 178 0−1
Far Cry 5 208 0−1
Fortnite 300−350 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 254 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 210 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 350−400 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 156 0−1
Battlefield 5 158 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 161 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 154 0−1
Dota 2 217 0−1
Far Cry 5 196 0−1
Fortnite 300−350 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 247 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 195 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 171 0−1
Metro Exodus 176 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 369 0−1
Valorant 350−400 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 146 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 146 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 136 0−1
Dota 2 213 0−1
Far Cry 5 183 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 217 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 182 0−1
Valorant 296 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 300−350 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 450−500
+49000%
1−2
−49000%
Grand Theft Auto V 150 0−1
Metro Exodus 115 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 400−450
+43500%
1−2
−43500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 93 0−1
Far Cry 5 171 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 197 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 153 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 182 0−1
Metro Exodus 76 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 154 0−1
Valorant 300−350 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 113 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 22 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 46 0−1
Dota 2 202 0−1
Far Cry 5 108 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 153 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 68.58 0.17
Recency 1 September 2020 11 November 2008
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 35 Watt

RTX 3090 has a 40241.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 450, on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 450 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3090 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 450 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
GeForce RTX 3090
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 450
Quadro NVS 450

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1.2 79368 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3090 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 12 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 3090 or Quadro NVS 450, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.