GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R7 M265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M265 with GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
GTS 450 Rev. 2 outperforms R7 M265 by a whopping 198% 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 | 1051 | 738 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | GF116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 20 May 2014 (11 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (14 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 192 |
| Compute units | 6 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 825 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 106 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.52 | 25.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | 0.6013 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 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 | 14
−186%
| 40−45
+186%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−194%
|
100−105
+194%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−190%
|
90−95
+190%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−194%
|
100−105
+194%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−170%
|
27−30
+170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−194%
|
100−105
+194%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how R7 M265 and GTS 450 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 Rev. 2 is 186% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.33 | 3.96 |
| Recency | 20 May 2014 | 15 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R7 M265 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 450 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 197.7% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M265 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
