GeForce GTS 450 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with GeForce GTS 450, including specs and performance data.
GTS 450 outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 781 | 739 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 96 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.65 |
| Power efficiency | 13.94 | 2.21 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | GF106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 years ago) | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $129 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 783 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 106 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 25.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | 0.6013 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 57.7 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 | No outputs | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 24−27
−16.7%
| 28
+16.7%
|
| Full HD | 15
−160%
| 39
+160%
|
| 1200p | 24−27
−12.5%
| 27
+12.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.31 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 19
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.3%
|
45−50
+4.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 32
−169%
|
86
+169%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 10
−70%
|
16−18
+70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.3%
|
45−50
+4.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−4.3%
|
45−50
+4.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−14.3%
|
30−35
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GTS 450 compete in popular games:
- GTS 450 is 17% faster in 900p
- GTS 450 is 160% faster in 1080p
- GTS 450 is 13% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 27% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 450 is 169% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- GTS 450 is ahead in 44 tests (72%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (20%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.03 | 3.40 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 13 September 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 106 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 606.7% lower power consumption.
GTS 450, on the other hand, has a 12.2% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTS 450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while GeForce GTS 450 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.
