GeForce MX450 vs Radeon HD 6970

Place in the ranking	538	462
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.05	no data
Power efficiency	2.03	26.82
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Cayman	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	14 December 2010 (14 years ago)	1 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$369	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	1536	896
Core clock speed	no data	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	880 MHz	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	2,640 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	550 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	84.48	100.8
Floating-point processing power	2.703 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	96	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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.0 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.5
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
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. 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.

HD 6970 7.38

GeForce MX450 9.74
+32%

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.

HD 6970 2836

GeForce MX450 3744
+32%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 6970 3470

GeForce MX450 4725
+36.2%

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	21−24 −38.1%	29 +38.1%
1440p	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
4K	18−20 −44.4%	26 +44.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	17.57	no data
1440p	30.75	no data
4K	20.50	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −129%	32 +129%
Elden Ring	20−22 −45%	29 +45%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −28.6%	18 +28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −66.7%	50 +66.7%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −78.9%	34 +78.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −114%	45 +114%
Valorant	24−27 −50%	35−40 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +87.5%	8 −87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +27.3%	11 −27.3%
Dota 2	24−27 −108%	54 +108%
Elden Ring	20−22 −40%	28 +40%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −75.8%	58 +75.8%
Fortnite	40−45 −29.5%	55−60 +29.5%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −33.3%	40 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −46.2%	38 +46.2%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +18.8%	16 −18.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −27.1%	75−80 +27.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +320%	5 −320%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −26.1%	27−30 +26.1%
Valorant	24−27 +9.1%	22 −9.1%
World of Tanks	110−120 −24.8%	140−150 +24.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +133%	6 −133%
Dota 2	24−27 −212%	81 +212%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −21.2%	40−45 +21.2%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −27.1%	75−80 +27.1%
Valorant	24−27 −50%	35−40 +50%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −37.5%	11 +37.5%
Elden Ring	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −37.5%	11 +37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −20.5%	45−50 +20.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
World of Tanks	50−55 −32.1%	70−75 +32.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −46.2%	18−20 +46.2%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −40%	21−24 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −28.6%	18 +28.6%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −63.6%	18−20 +63.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Valorant	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −11.1%	20−22 +11.1%
Elden Ring	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −11.1%	20−22 +11.1%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −33.3%	27−30 +33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −11.1%	20−22 +11.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 −77.8%	32 +77.8%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Fortnite	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Valorant	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%

This is how HD 6970 and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX450 is 38% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX450 is 42% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX450 is 44% 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 HD 6970 is 320% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6970 is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
GeForce MX450 is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.38	9.74
Recency	14 December 2010	1 August 2020
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	550 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX450 has a 32% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 2100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6970 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6970 is a desktop card while GeForce MX450 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.