GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 vs Radeon RX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 and GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 580 outperforms GTS 450 Rev. 2 by a whopping 423% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 756 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.84 | 2.95 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1257 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1340 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 185 Watt | 106 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 193.0 | 25.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.175 TFLOPS | 0.6013 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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 | 97
+439%
| 18−20 |
| 1440p | 43 | 8−9
−81.4%
|
| 4K | 37 | 7−8
−81.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.36 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.33 | no data |
| 4K | 6.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+475%
|
8−9 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11 |
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+490%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+475%
|
8−9 |
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+493%
|
14−16 |
| Fortnite | 153
+467%
|
27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+500%
|
18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
+431%
|
16−18 |
| Valorant | 150−160
+467%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+480%
|
10−11 |
| Battlefield 5 | 102
+467%
|
18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+442%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+475%
|
8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+452%
|
21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+443%
|
14−16 |
| Far Cry 6 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11 |
| Fortnite | 106
+489%
|
18−20 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101
+461%
|
18−20 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77
+450%
|
14−16 |
| Metro Exodus | 48
+433%
|
9−10 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70
+483%
|
12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+500%
|
12−14 |
| Valorant | 150−160
+467%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+481%
|
16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+475%
|
8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+452%
|
21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 71
+492%
|
12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+486%
|
14−16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+444%
|
9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+450%
|
8−9 |
| Valorant | 150−160
+467%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80
+471%
|
14−16 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+463%
|
8−9 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+470%
|
27−30 |
| Far Cry 6 | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8 |
| Metro Exodus | 28
+460%
|
5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+480%
|
30−33 |
| Valorant | 170−180
+497%
|
30−33 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+510%
|
10−11 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+444%
|
9−10 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+440%
|
10−11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+467%
|
9−10 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4 |
| Far Cry 6 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 57
+470%
|
10−11 |
| Metro Exodus | 18
+500%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+440%
|
5−6 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+452%
|
21−24 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+429%
|
7−8 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+500%
|
12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+550%
|
4−5 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+486%
|
7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+500%
|
3−4 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 23
+475%
|
4−5 |
This is how RX 580 and GTS 450 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- RX 580 is 439% faster in 1080p
- RX 580 is 438% faster in 1440p
- RX 580 is 429% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.99 | 4.01 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 15 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 185 Watt | 106 Watt |
RX 580 has a 423% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 65% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 450 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has 43% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
