GeForce MX450 vs Radeon R9 M485X

Place in performance ranking	434	428
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.55	no data
Architecture	GCN 3 (2014−2016)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Amethyst	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	14 May 2016 (8 years ago)	1 August 2020 (3 years ago)
Current price	$2500	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2048	896
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	92.54	100.8
Floating-point performance	2,961 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R9 M485X and GeForce MX450 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 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

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2
CUDA	no data	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

R9 M485X 9.47

GeForce MX450 9.66
+2%

GeForce MX450 outperforms Radeon R9 M485X by 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 M485X 3660

GeForce MX450 3733
+2%

GeForce MX450 outperforms Radeon R9 M485X by 2% in Passmark.

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	27−30 −3.7%	28 +3.7%
1440p	14−16 −7.1%	15 +7.1%
4K	24−27 −8.3%	26 +8.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

−113%

32
+113%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +40%	10 −40%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −46.7%	22 +46.7%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%
Hitman 3	21−24 −71.4%	36 +71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −75%	56 +75%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −104%	55 +104%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −66.7%	45 +66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −85.2%	50 +85.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −56.3%	25 +56.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +133%	6 −133%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +15.4%	13 −15.4%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −107%	58 +107%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +62.5%	16 −62.5%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%
Hitman 3	21−24 +5%	20 −5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −21.9%	39 +21.9%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −14.8%	31 +14.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −29.6%	35 +29.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 −3.7%	28 +3.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −73.7%	33 +73.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −12.5%	18 +12.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +27.3%	11 −27.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +87.5%	8 −87.5%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −3%	30−35 +3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +33.3%	24 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −3.7%	28 +3.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −5.3%	20 +5.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +129%	7 −129%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

−14.8%

31
+14.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −40%	7 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −33.3%	20 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +0%	5 +0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	21−24 −86.4%	41 +86.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +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 R9 M485X and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX450 is 4% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX450 is 7% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX450 is 8% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M485X is 133% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 113% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M485X is ahead in 9 tests (13%)
GeForce MX450 is ahead in 36 tests (50%)
there's a draw in 27 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.47	9.66
Recency	14 May 2016	1 August 2020
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	25 Watt