Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 vs R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 and Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 295X2
2014, $1,499
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
20.79
+2263%

R9 295X2 outperforms HD 6450 GDDR5 by a whopping 2263% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking3031184
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.17no data
Power efficiency3.212.51
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameVesuviusCaicos
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)18 April 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2816 ×2160
Core clock speedno data750 MHz
Boost clock speed1018 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)500 Watt27 Watt
Texture fill rate179.2 ×2no data
Floating-point processing power5.733 TFLOPS ×2no data
ROPs64 ×2no data
TMUs176 ×2no data
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KBno data

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 supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length307 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×21 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit ×264 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s ×2no data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 295X2 20.79
+2263%
HD 6450 GDDR5 0.88

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.

R9 295X2 21197
+4468%
HD 6450 GDDR5 464

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:

900p160−170
+2186%
7
−2186%
Full HD350−400
+2233%
15
−2233%
1200p110−120
+2100%
5
−2100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.28no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 29
+0%
29
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 295X2 and HD 6450 GDDR5 compete in popular games:

  • R9 295X2 is 2186% faster in 900p
  • R9 295X2 is 2233% faster in 1080p
  • R9 295X2 is 2100% faster in 1200p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 36 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.79 0.88
Recency 29 April 2014 18 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 500 Watt 27 Watt

R9 295X2 has a 2262.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6450 GDDR5, on the other hand, has 1751.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 295X2
Radeon R9 295X2
AMD Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5
Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 105 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 27 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 295X2 or Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.