GeForce MX450 vs Quadro 1000M

Place in the ranking	987	460
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.17	no data
Power efficiency	2.24	26.59
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF108	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)	1 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$174.95	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	96	896
Core clock speed	700 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	11.20	100.8
Floating-point processing power	0.2688 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	64.03 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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.

Quadro 1000M 1.47

GeForce MX450 9.70
+560%

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.

Quadro 1000M 566

GeForce MX450 3735
+560%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro 1000M 943

GeForce MX450 8250
+775%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro 1000M 4566

GeForce MX450 22831
+400%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro 1000M 2123

GeForce MX450 29016
+1267%

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	41 +41.4%	29 −41.4%
1440p	2−3 −800%	18 +800%
4K	4−5 −650%	30 +650%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.27	no data
1440p	87.48	no data
4K	43.74	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−700%

32
+700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −450%	22 +450%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1000%	21−24 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1500%	60−65 +1500%
Hitman 3	6−7 −400%	30 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −253%	50−55 +253%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1400%	45 +1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −300%	30−35 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −185%	94 +185%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −225%	13 +225%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1000%	21−24 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1500%	60−65 +1500%
Hitman 3	6−7 −383%	29 +383%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −253%	50−55 +253%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −400%	40 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −136%	24−27 +136%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −170%	89 +170%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −100%	8 +100%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1000%	21−24 +1000%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1500%	60−65 +1500%
Hitman 3	6−7 −317%	25 +317%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −60%	24 +60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −275%	30 +275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −81.8%	20 +81.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +371%	7 −371%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−933%

31
+933%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −850%	18−20 +850%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −650%	14−16 +650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	10−11
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Hitman 3	7−8 −157%	18 +157%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −300%	20−22 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −771%	60−65 +771%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−550%

26
+550%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−600%

7−8
+600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	4−5
Far Cry 5	0−1	5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−200%

9−10
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10 +0%	10 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	55 +0%	55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	37 +0%	37 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7 +0%	7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18 +0%	18 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how Quadro 1000M and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

Quadro 1000M is 41% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX450 is 800% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX450 is 650% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 1000M is 371% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 1000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GeForce MX450 is ahead in 48 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.47	9.70
Recency	13 January 2011	1 August 2020
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX450 has a 559.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX450 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.