GeForce MX450 vs Go 7900 GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 7900 GS and GeForce MX450, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX450 outperforms 7900 GS by a whopping 2017% 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 | 1321 | 528 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | 27.38 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2006 (20 years ago) | 1 August 2020 (5 years ago) |
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 | 27 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 375 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 375 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 7.500 | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 64 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 10000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 64.03 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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:
| Full HD | 1−2
−2700%
| 28
+2700%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 16 |
| 4K | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3100%
|
32
+3100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2100%
|
22
+2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−230%
|
85−90
+230%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−763%
|
130−140
+763%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−780%
|
88
+780%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 10 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−560%
|
33
+560%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−230%
|
85−90
+230%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−710%
|
81
+710%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−230%
|
85−90
+230%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−6800%
|
65−70
+6800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1075%
|
45−50
+1075%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 18−20 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2250%
|
45−50
+2250%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how Go 7900 GS and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX450 is 2700% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX450 is 2400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 6800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX450 performs better in 27 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 31 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.42 | 8.89 |
| Recency | 18 April 2006 | 1 August 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 25 Watt |
Go 7900 GS has 25% lower power consumption.
GeForce MX450, on the other hand, has a 2017% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7900 GS in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
