GeForce MX450 vs GT 640M LE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M LE and GeForce MX450, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX450 outperforms GT 640M LE by a whopping 428% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 925 | 465 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.97 | 26.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $849.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | Up to 384 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 500 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 12.05 | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.289 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 64 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR3\DDR5 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 785 MHz | 10000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 28.8 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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 19
−426%
| 100−110
+426%
|
| Full HD | 19
−52.6%
| 29
+52.6%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−467%
| 17
+467%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−550%
| 26
+550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.74 | no data |
| 1440p | 283.33 | no data |
| 4K | 212.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−540%
|
32
+540%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−400%
|
50
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1600%
|
34
+1600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−463%
|
45
+463%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−120%
|
11
+120%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1700%
|
54
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−346%
|
58
+346%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−533%
|
55−60
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−300%
|
40
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1167%
|
38
+1167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−317%
|
75−80
+317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
−292%
|
140−150
+292%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−2600%
|
81
+2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−200%
|
30
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−317%
|
75−80
+317%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−460%
|
27−30
+460%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−100%
|
32
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Valorant | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how GT 640M LE and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX450 is 426% faster in 900p
- GeForce MX450 is 53% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX450 is 467% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX450 is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 640M LE is 60% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 2600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 640M LE is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- GeForce MX450 is ahead in 44 tests (72%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (26%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.76 | 9.30 |
| Recency | 4 May 2012 | 1 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt |
GT 640M LE has 25% lower power consumption.
GeForce MX450, on the other hand, has a 428.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
