Quadro 3000M vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
GTS 450 outperforms 3000M by a substantial 34% 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 | 775 | 873 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.58 | 0.10 |
| Power efficiency | 2.29 | 2.42 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTS 450 has 480% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK 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 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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.
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.
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.
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
+55.6%
| 18−21
−55.6%
|
| Full HD | 39
−30.8%
| 51
+30.8%
|
| 1200p | 27
+50%
| 18−21
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31
+137%
| 7.82
−137%
|
- GTS 450 has 137% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+83%
|
45−50
−83%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+41.2%
|
16−18
−41.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| God of War | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| God of War | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTS 450 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 56% faster in 900p
- Quadro 3000M is 31% faster in 1080p
- GTS 450 is 50% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 450 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 450 performs better in 56 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.18 | 2.38 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTS 450 has a 33.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 41.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
