FirePro W4100 vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregated performance score
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 16% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 691 | 657 |
| Place by popularity | 98 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.31 | 0.17 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
| Current price | $127 (1x MSRP) | $916 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 450 has 82% better value for money than FirePro W4100.
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 | 192 | 512 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.1 billion/sec | 20.16 |
| Floating-point performance | 601.3 gflops | 645.1 gflops |
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 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 8.25" (210 mm) (21 cm) | 171 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
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 | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | no data | 1 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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.
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 16% based on our aggregated 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%
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 16% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 8% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 2% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
FirePro W4100 outperforms GeForce GTS 450 by 12% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| Full HD | 38
+138%
| 16
−138%
|
| 1200p | 27
−11.1%
| 30−35
+11.1%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−50%
| 3
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7
−14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
This is how GTS 450 and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:
- FirePro W4100 is 7.1% faster than GTS 450 in 900p
- GTS 450 is 138% faster than FirePro W4100 in 1080p
- FirePro W4100 is 11.1% faster than GTS 450 in 1200p
- FirePro W4100 is 50% faster than GTS 450 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 450 is 14.3% faster than the FirePro W4100.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro W4100 is 100% faster than the GTS 450.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 450 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- FirePro W4100 is ahead in 45 tests (79%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.42 | 3.96 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 2 October 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 50 Watt |
The FirePro W4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while FirePro W4100 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
