Quadro NVS 450 vs Radeon RX 7600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 7600 with Quadro NVS 450, including specs and performance data.

RX 7600
2023, $269
8 GB GDDR6, 165 Watt
39.49
+24581%

RX 7600 outperforms NVS 450 by a whopping 24581% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1271497
Place by popularity24not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation86.05no data
Power efficiency18.510.35
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameNavi 33G98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date24 May 2023 (3 years ago)11 November 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$269 $163.14

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 7600 and NVS 450 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores20488 ×2
Core clock speed1720 MHz480 MHz
Boost clock speed2655 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,300 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate339.81.920 ×2
Floating-point processing power21.75 TFLOPS0.0192 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs644 ×2
TMUs1284 ×2
Ray Tracing Cores32no data
L0 Cache512 KBno data
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MB16 KB
L3 Cache32 MBno data

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 4.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Length204 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB256 MB ×2
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed2250 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s11.2 GB/s ×2
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.14x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.84.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.21.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RX 7600 39.49
+24581%
NVS 450 0.16

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 7600 16450
+24824%
Samples: 6240
NVS 450 66
Samples: 79

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 HD1410−1
1440p71-0−1
4K37-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.91no data
1440p3.79no data
4K7.27no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 348
+34700%
1−2
−34700%
Cyberpunk 2077 148 0−1
Palworld 158 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 149 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 336
+33500%
1−2
−33500%
Cyberpunk 2077 117 0−1
Far Cry 5 183 0−1
Fortnite 170−180 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 0−1
Palworld 132 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 0−1
Valorant 230−240 0−1

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 179 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+27700%
1−2
−27700%
Cyberpunk 2077 100 0−1
Far Cry 5 174 0−1
Fortnite 170−180 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 150 0−1
Metro Exodus 113 0−1
Palworld 97 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 210 0−1
Valorant 230−240 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 90 0−1
Far Cry 5 163 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 123 0−1
Valorant 230−240 0−1

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180 0−1
Palworld 86 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280−290
+27900%
1−2
−27900%
Grand Theft Auto V 77 0−1
Metro Exodus 65 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 260−270
+26200%
1−2
−26200%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 56 0−1
Far Cry 5 115 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 110−120 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 86 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110 0−1
Palworld 60 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 22 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 82 0−1
Metro Exodus 38 0−1
Palworld 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59 0−1
Valorant 240−250 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24 0−1
Far Cry 5 57 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 0−1
Palworld 28 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.49 0.16
Recency 24 May 2023 11 November 2008
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 6 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 35 Watt

RX 7600 has a 24581% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 817% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 450, on the other hand, has 371% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 450 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 7600 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro NVS 450 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


4.3 4013 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 17 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 7600 or Quadro NVS 450, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.