GeForce GTS 450 vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	438	730
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.28	0.66
Power efficiency	4.76	2.21
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	GF106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	13 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 700% better value for money than GTS 450.

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	1024	192
Core clock speed	no data	783 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	106 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	100 °C
Texture fill rate	59.20	25.06
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	0.6013 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	32

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	210 mm	210 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	1804 (3608 data rate) MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	57.7 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

R7 265 10.42
+205%

GTS 450 3.42

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 265 5220
+238%

GTS 450 1545

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:

900p	90−95 +200%	30 −200%
Full HD	110−120 +189%	38 −189%
1200p	80−85 +196%	27 −196%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

1.35

3.39

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how R7 265 and GTS 450 compete in popular games:

R7 265 is 200% faster in 900p
R7 265 is 189% faster in 1080p
R7 265 is 196% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.42	3.42
Recency	13 February 2014	13 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	106 Watt

R7 265 has a 204.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 450, on the other hand, has 41.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.

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