Radeon HD 6950M vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Radeon HD 6950M, including specs and performance data.
HD 6950M outperforms GTS 450 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 739 | 729 |
| Place by popularity | 96 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.21 | 4.93 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Blackcomb |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 580 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 27.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 1.114 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48 |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 115.2 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 | 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) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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
+3.7%
| 27−30
−3.7%
|
| Full HD | 39
−2.6%
| 40−45
+2.6%
|
| 1200p | 27
+0%
| 27−30
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+38.7%
|
60−65
−38.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−4.2%
|
24−27
+4.2%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−6.3%
|
30−35
+6.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTS 450 and HD 6950M compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 4% faster in 900p
- HD 6950M is 3% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 450 is 39% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6950M is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 450 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- HD 6950M is ahead in 26 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.34 | 3.51 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 4 January 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 6950M has a 5.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and 112% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 450 and Radeon HD 6950M.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
