GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 vs Quadro M4000M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M4000M outperforms GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 by 265% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 310 | 626 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 3.37 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Current price | $832 | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1,280 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1013 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 106 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.00 | 25.06 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,496 gflops | 601.3 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro M4000M and GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
Memory
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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 3608 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 2.1 |
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 | 63
+294%
| 16−18
−294%
|
| 4K | 20
+300%
| 5−6
−300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+286%
|
14−16
−286%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+286%
|
14−16
−286%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+286%
|
14−16
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
This is how M4000M and GTS 450 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- M4000M is 294% faster than GTS 450 Rev. 2 in 1080p
- M4000M is 300% faster than GTS 450 Rev. 2 in 4K
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 15.98 | 4.38 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 15 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 106 Watt |
The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
