GeForce MX450 vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with GeForce MX450, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.34
+6.7%

M2000 outperforms MX450 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking441460
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.63no data
Power efficiency9.4526.57
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM206N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)1 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 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 cores768896
Core clock speed796 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1575 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate55.82100.8
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4864

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 type128 BitGDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz10000 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s64.03 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2
CUDA5.27.5

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 M2000 10.34
+6.7%
GeForce MX450 9.69

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 M2000 3985
+6.7%
GeForce MX450 3734

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 M2000 14562
GeForce MX450 29016
+99.3%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro M2000 14286
GeForce MX450 27944
+95.6%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro M2000 13100
GeForce MX450 29969
+129%

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 HD30−35
+3.4%
29
−3.4%
1440p18−20
+0%
18
+0%
4K30−35
+0%
30
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.59no data
1440p24.32no data
4K14.59no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 32
+0%
32
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
+0%
10
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 30
+0%
30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 94
+0%
94
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 29
+0%
29
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40
+0%
40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 89
+0%
89
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 11
+0%
11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
+0%
8
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 25
+0%
25
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24
+0%
24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+0%
30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7
+0%
7
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7
+0%
7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 18
+0%
18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+0%
18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+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

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M2000 is 3% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.34 9.69
Recency 8 April 2016 1 August 2020
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX450, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M2000 and GeForce MX450.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while GeForce MX450 is a notebook one.


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

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 Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
NVIDIA GeForce MX450
GeForce MX450

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 210 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1322 votes

Rate GeForce MX450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.