Radeon R9 M485X vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Radeon R9 M485X, including specs and performance data.
R9 M485X outperforms GTS 450 by a whopping 184% 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 | 791 | 519 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.32 | 2.79 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (9 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 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 | 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 | None |
| 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 160.0 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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
−168%
| 75−80
+168%
|
| Full HD | 39
−182%
| 110−120
+182%
|
| 1200p | 27
−178%
| 75−80
+178%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−308%
|
45−50
+308%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−242%
|
40−45
+242%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−308%
|
45−50
+308%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−208%
|
35−40
+208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−211%
|
55−60
+211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−136%
|
30−35
+136%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−242%
|
40−45
+242%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−308%
|
45−50
+308%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
−64%
|
140−150
+64%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−116%
|
65−70
+116%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−208%
|
35−40
+208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−211%
|
55−60
+211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−136%
|
30−35
+136%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−242%
|
40−45
+242%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−116%
|
65−70
+116%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−208%
|
35−40
+208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−136%
|
30−35
+136%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−211%
|
55−60
+211%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−71.4%
|
45−50
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−219%
|
100−110
+219%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−175%
|
21−24
+175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−240%
|
30−35
+240%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTS 450 and R9 M485X compete in popular games:
- R9 M485X is 168% faster in 900p
- R9 M485X is 182% faster in 1080p
- R9 M485X is 178% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M485X is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M485X performs better in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.17 | 9.00 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 15 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTS 450 has 135.8% lower power consumption.
R9 M485X, on the other hand, has a 183.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M485X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R9 M485X 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.
