Quadro FX 3450 vs Quadro 400

Place in the ranking	1264	1263
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	0.01
Power efficiency	0.81	0.31
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	GT216	NV41
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	5 April 2011 (13 years ago)	28 July 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$169	$135.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 400 and FX 3450 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 cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	450 MHz	425 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	190 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	32 Watt	83 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	5.100
Floating-point processing power	0.108 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	12

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	163 mm	226 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	770 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.32 GB/s	32 GB/s

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

1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	4.1	3.0
OpenGL	3.3	2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.2	-

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 400 0.38

FX 3450 0.38

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 400 148

FX 3450 148

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Recency	5 April 2011	28 July 2005
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	32 Watt	83 Watt

Quadro 400 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 159.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 400 and Quadro FX 3450.

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