Quadro FX 3450 vs Radeon RX 480

Place in the ranking	250	1263
Place by popularity	97	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	15.82	0.01
Power efficiency	10.21	0.31
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	NV41
GCN generation	4th Gen	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	29 June 2016 (8 years ago)	28 July 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$135.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 480 has 158100% better value for money than FX 3450.

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	2304	no data
Compute units	36	no data
Core clock speed	1120 MHz	425 MHz
Boost clock speed	1266 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,700 million	190 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	83 Watt
Texture fill rate	182.3	5.100
Floating-point processing power	5.834 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	144	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).

Bus support	n/a	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	241 mm	226 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	32 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	2.0	-
DisplayPort support	1.4HDR	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	n/a	-
CrossFire	+	-
Enduro	n/a	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	n/a	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	n/a	-
ZeroCore	+	-
UVD	+	-
VCE	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	6.4	3.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL	2.0	N/A
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	n/a	-

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.

RX 480 22.35
+5782%

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.

RX 480 8609
+5717%

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.

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	78 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
1440p	52	0−1
4K	35	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.94	135.75
1440p	4.40	no data
4K	6.54	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

35−40

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	58	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40	0−1
Battlefield 5	70−75 +7200%	1−2 −7200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +6600%	2−3 −6600%
Hitman 3	40−45	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +10400%	1−2 −10400%
Metro Exodus	93 +9200%	1−2 −9200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110 +10900%	1−2 −10900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +9600%	1−2 −9600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	93 +9200%	1−2 −9200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40	0−1
Battlefield 5	48	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	31	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +6600%	2−3 −6600%
Hitman 3	40−45	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +10400%	1−2 −10400%
Metro Exodus	78 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	75−80 +7400%	1−2 −7400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +9600%	1−2 −9600%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40	0−1
Far Cry 5	45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	77 +7600%	1−2 −7600%
Hitman 3	40−45	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +10400%	1−2 −10400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	75−80 +7400%	1−2 −7400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	44	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +9600%	1−2 −9600%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60
+5800%

1−2

−5800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65 +6400%	1−2 −6400%
Far Cry New Dawn	42	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Far Cry 5	30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +6200%	2−3 −6200%
Hitman 3	24−27	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50	0−1
Metro Exodus	50	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +6350%	2−3 −6350%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	31	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	21	0−1
Hitman 3	16−18	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Metro Exodus	25	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	15	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

0−1

This is how RX 480 and FX 3450 compete in popular games:

RX 480 is 7700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.35	0.38
Recency	29 June 2016	28 July 2005
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	83 Watt

RX 480 has a 5781.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3450, on the other hand, has 80.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3450 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 480 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3450 is a workstation one.

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