GeForce FX Go 5200 vs MX450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX450 and GeForce FX Go 5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX450 outperforms FX Go 5200 by a whopping 45050% 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 | 476 | 1509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 26.46 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | NV31M |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 March 2003 (22 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 | 896 | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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, GDDR6 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DDR |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
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 | 28 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 16 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 25 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 49 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 61 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+1444%
|
9−10
−1444%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 88
+1157%
|
7−8
−1157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 39 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 81
+1057%
|
7−8
−1057%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+271%
|
24−27
−271%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce MX450 surpassed FX Go 5200 in all 25 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.03 | 0.02 |
| Recency | 1 August 2020 | 1 March 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 150 nm |
GeForce MX450 has a 45050% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX Go 5200 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.
