RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms HD 6450 GDDR5 by a whopping 4516% 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 | 1185 | 108 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.04 |
| Power efficiency | 2.53 | 45.07 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Caicos | AD107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2011 (14 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 160 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 12 MB |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 data | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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:
| 900p | 7
−4186%
| 300−350
+4186%
|
| Full HD | 15
−4233%
| 650−700
+4233%
|
| 1200p | 5
−4500%
| 230−240
+4500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−4400%
|
1350−1400
+4400%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 29
−4383%
|
1300−1350
+4383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4186%
|
600−650
+4186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−4400%
|
1350−1400
+4400%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−4186%
|
600−650
+4186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4400%
|
270−280
+4400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−4400%
|
1350−1400
+4400%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−4400%
|
180−190
+4400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−4344%
|
400−450
+4344%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4233%
|
130−140
+4233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−4186%
|
600−650
+4186%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4500%
|
230−240
+4500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
This is how HD 6450 GDDR5 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 4186% faster in 900p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 4233% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 4500% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.89 | 41.08 |
| Recency | 18 April 2011 | 12 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 70 Watt |
HD 6450 GDDR5 has 159.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 4515.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 is a desktop graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
