ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 vs GeForce MX450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX450 and Radeon Xpress 1250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX450 outperforms ATI Xpress 1250 by a whopping 8770% 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 | 508 | 1496 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.07 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | RS690 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 28 February 2007 (18 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 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 120 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 4 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5, GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | no data |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| 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 |
| God of War | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
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 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+267%
|
24−27
−267%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 88
+1000%
|
8−9
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 39 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+267%
|
24−27
−267%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 81
+913%
|
8−9
−913%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| God of War | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+267%
|
24−27
−267%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| 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
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| God of War | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 4600% faster.
- in God of War, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Xpress 1250 is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX450 performs better in 24 tests (96%)
- ATI Xpress 1250 performs better in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.87 | 0.10 |
| Recency | 1 August 2020 | 28 February 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 80 nm |
GeForce MX450 has a 8770% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1250 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.
