GeForce GTS 450 vs GRID K520

Place in the ranking	480	733
Place by popularity	not in top-100	100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	0.66
Power efficiency	2.80	2.23
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK104	GF106
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	13 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$3,599	$129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTS 450 has 78% better value for money than GRID K520.

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	1536	192
Core clock speed	745 MHz	783 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	225 Watt	106 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	100 °C
Texture fill rate	95.36	25.06
Floating-point processing power	2.289 TFLOPS	0.6013 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	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	no data	PCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	210 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-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	1250 MHz	1804 (3608 data rate) MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 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	No outputs	Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	3.0	+

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.

GRID K520 9.15
+168%

GTS 450 3.42

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.

GRID K520 3516
+167%

GTS 450 1316

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GRID K520 40
+167%

GTS 450 15

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	80−85 +167%	30 −167%
Full HD	95−100 +157%	37 −157%
1200p	70−75 +159%	27 −159%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

37.88
−987%

3.49

+987%

GTS 450 has 987% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	86 +0%	86 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
World of Tanks	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how GRID K520 and GTS 450 compete in popular games:

GRID K520 is 167% faster in 900p
GRID K520 is 157% faster in 1080p
GRID K520 is 159% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.15	3.42
Recency	23 July 2013	13 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	225 Watt	106 Watt

GRID K520 has a 167.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 450, on the other hand, has 112.3% lower power consumption.

The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop one.

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