Quadro K510M vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Quadro K510M, including specs and performance data.
GTS 450 outperforms K510M by a whopping 108% 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 | 789 | 1006 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.31 | 3.91 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 13.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 0.3249 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 19.2 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 |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
| 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.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
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.
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
+133%
| 12−14
−133%
|
| Full HD | 39
+117%
| 18−20
−117%
|
| 1200p | 27
+125%
| 12−14
−125%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+153%
|
30−35
−153%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTS 450 and Quadro K510M compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 133% faster in 900p
- GTS 450 is 117% faster in 1080p
- GTS 450 is 125% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTS 450 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 450 performs better in 52 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.02 | 1.45 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 30 Watt |
GTS 450 has a 108.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro K510M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 253.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K510M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K510M 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.
