GeForce MX450 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	189	462
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.59	no data
Power efficiency	19.86	26.88
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	1 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1792	896
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	165.8	100.8
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	112	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	64.03 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	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	+
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2
CUDA	6.1	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. 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.

Quadro P4000 30.22
+210%

GeForce MX450 9.74

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.

Quadro P4000 11619
+210%

GeForce MX450 3745

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro P4000 41420
+42.7%

GeForce MX450 29016

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P4000 41696
+49.2%

GeForce MX450 27944

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P4000 38590
+28.8%

GeForce MX450 29969

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	69 +138%	29 −138%
1440p	50−55 +194%	17 −194%
4K	80−85 +208%	26 −208%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.81	no data
1440p	16.30	no data
4K	10.19	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +96.9%	32 −96.9%
Elden Ring	100−110 +252%	29 −252%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +175%	30−35 −175%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +250%	18 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +176%	50 −176%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +126%	34 −126%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +40%	45 −40%
Valorant	120−130 +236%	35−40 −236%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +175%	30−35 −175%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +638%	8 −638%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +473%	11 −473%
Dota 2	100−105 +85.2%	54 −85.2%
Elden Ring	100−110 +264%	28 −264%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +46.6%	58 −46.6%
Fortnite	140−150 +151%	55−60 −151%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +245%	40 −245%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +163%	38 −163%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +381%	16 −381%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +135%	75−80 −135%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +1160%	5 −1160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +248%	27−30 −248%
Valorant	120−130 +450%	22 −450%
World of Tanks	270−280 +93.6%	140−150 −93.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +175%	30−35 −175%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +950%	6 −950%
Dota 2	100−105 +23.5%	81 −23.5%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +113%	40−45 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +360%	30 −360%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +135%	75−80 −135%
Valorant	120−130 +236%	35−40 −236%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +382%	11 −382%
Elden Ring	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +382%	11 −382%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +272%	45−50 −272%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
World of Tanks	190−200 +179%	70−75 −179%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +211%	18−20 −211%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +343%	21−24 −343%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +361%	18 −361%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +278%	18−20 −278%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +292%	12−14 −292%
Valorant	85−90 +258%	24−27 −258%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Dota 2	55−60 +175%	20−22 −175%
Elden Ring	24−27 +333%	6−7 −333%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +175%	20−22 −175%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +380%	5−6 −380%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +236%	27−30 −236%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +175%	20−22 −175%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +267%	9−10 −267%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Dota 2	55−60 +71.9%	32 −71.9%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +242%	12−14 −242%
Fortnite	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +300%	12−14 −300%
Valorant	40−45 +330%	10−11 −330%

This is how Quadro P4000 and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 138% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4000 is 194% faster in 1440p
Quadro P4000 is 208% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 1160% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed GeForce MX450 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.22	9.74
Recency	6 February 2017	1 August 2020
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	25 Watt