Quadro FX 3450 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti

Place in the ranking	137	1264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	14.04	0.01
Power efficiency	9.85	0.31
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	GM200	NV41
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	2 June 2015 (9 years ago)	28 July 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$135.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 Ti has 140300% better value for money than FX 3450.

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	2816	no data
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	425 MHz
Boost clock speed	1075 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	8,000 million	190 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	83 Watt
Texture fill rate	189.4	5.100
Floating-point processing power	6.06 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	96	8
TMUs	176	12

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 Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	267 mm	226 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	600 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.5 GB/s	32 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	+	-
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.

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	6.4	3.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	1.1.126	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. 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.

GTX 980 Ti 35.81
+9324%

FX 3450 0.38

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.

GTX 980 Ti 13803
+9226%

FX 3450 148

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:

Full HD	101 +10000%	1−2 −10000%
1440p	48	0−1
4K	52	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.43	135.75
1440p	13.52	no data
4K	12.48	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

60−65

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	75−80	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60−65	0−1
Battlefield 5	110−120 +11500%	1−2 −11500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65	0−1
Far Cry 5	75−80	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	90−95	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +18100%	1−2 −18100%
Hitman 3	75−80	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +15100%	1−2 −15100%
Metro Exodus	110−120 +11600%	1−2 −11600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	85−90	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +12800%	1−2 −12800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +12200%	1−2 −12200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	75−80	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60−65	0−1
Battlefield 5	47	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65	0−1
Far Cry 5	75−80	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	36	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +18100%	1−2 −18100%
Hitman 3	75−80	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +15100%	1−2 −15100%
Metro Exodus	49	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	85−90	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +12800%	1−2 −12800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	155 +15400%	1−2 −15400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +12200%	1−2 −12200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	46	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60−65	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65	0−1
Far Cry 5	75−80	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	72	0−1
Hitman 3	75−80	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +15100%	1−2 −15100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +12800%	1−2 −12800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	59	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 +12200%	1−2 −12200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

85−90

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35−40	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 +10100%	2−3 −10100%
Hitman 3	45−50	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80	0−1
Metro Exodus	65−70	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	180−190 +18100%	1−2 −18100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

60−65

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	29	0−1
Hitman 3	27−30	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +17000%	1−2 −17000%
Metro Exodus	35	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	44	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	42	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

0−1

This is how GTX 980 Ti and FX 3450 compete in popular games:

GTX 980 Ti is 10000% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.81	0.38
Recency	2 June 2015	28 July 2005
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	83 Watt

GTX 980 Ti has a 9323.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3450, on the other hand, has 201.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3450 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3450 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.