GeForce MX450 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	650	466
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.74	no data
Power efficiency	9.49	26.90
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Lexa	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	4 June 2017 (7 years ago)	1 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	512	896
Core clock speed	925 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1575 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	39.01	100.8
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	3.226 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	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 x8	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 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

1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
Optimus	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

PRO WX 2100 4.65

GeForce MX450 9.41
+102%

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.

PRO WX 2100 1850

GeForce MX450 3745
+102%

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	14−16 −107%	29 +107%
1440p	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
4K	12−14 −117%	26 +117%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.64	no data
1440p	18.63	no data
4K	12.42	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −220%	32 +220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −80%	18 +80%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −138%	50 +138%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −278%	34 +278%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −209%	34 +209%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −200%	45 +200%
Valorant	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +75%	8 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −10%	11 +10%
Dota 2	16−18 −238%	54 +238%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −142%	58 +142%
Fortnite	27−30 −104%	55−60 +104%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −90.5%	40 +90.5%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −138%	38 +138%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −45.5%	16 +45.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −82.9%	75−80 +82.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +200%	5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −81.3%	27−30 +81.3%
Valorant	12−14 −69.2%	22 +69.2%
World of Tanks	75−80 −78.5%	140−150 +78.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6 −66.7%
Dota 2	16−18 −406%	81 +406%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −66.7%	40−45 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −42.9%	30 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −144%	22 +144%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −82.9%	75−80 +82.9%
Valorant	12−14 −185%	35−40 +185%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Dota 2	4−5 −175%	11 +175%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 −120%	11 +120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
World of Tanks	30−35 −106%	70−75 +106%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −171%	18−20 +171%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −157%	18 +157%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
Valorant	12−14 −84.6%	24−27 +84.6%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −17.6%	20−22 +17.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −100%	27−30 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Dota 2	16−18 −88.2%	32 +88.2%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Fortnite	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Valorant	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and GeForce MX450 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX450 is 107% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX450 is 113% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX450 is 117% 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 PRO WX 2100 is 200% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
GeForce MX450 is ahead in 57 tests (89%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.65	9.41
Recency	4 June 2017	1 August 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX450 has a 102.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation 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.