AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 occupy similar performance tiers but arrive from different eras and design philosophies. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the GTS 450 leads by 5.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 4893 against 4650. Both GPUs sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, yet their nearest rivals tell different stories about each card’s competitive positioning. The GTS 450’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4901, a mere 0.2% higher; the R5 M255’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791, also 0.1% ahead. This suggests that while both are mid-pack performers, the GTS 450 edges out the R5 M255 in raw compute, though the R5 M255 counters with a modern feature set and higher FP32 throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 against the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 4650. That 5.2% delta represents a clear, if modest, victory for the older Fermi-based card. In practical terms, the GTS 450 delivers roughly 5% more OpenCL compute throughput, which could translate to slightly faster GPU-accelerated workloads in applications that rely on this API. However, the R5 M255 is not without its own benchmark credentials: it posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925, a test the GTS 450 cannot run because its feature set lacks Vulkan support. This means the R5 M255 offers a measurable advantage in Vulkan-based scenarios, even though no direct head-to-head exists for that API.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the GTS 450 averages 4893 across all its tests, while the R5 M255 averages 4788 across its OpenCL and Vulkan results. That difference of 105 points (roughly 2.2%) aligns with the single OpenCL head-to-head, reinforcing the GTS 450’s edge in compute-heavy tasks. Yet the R5 M255’s Vulkan score of 4925 exceeds the GTS 450’s OpenCL score of 4893, indicating that in modern graphics APIs, the newer AMD part can outperform the older NVIDIA card despite losing in OpenCL. The data shows a split personality: the GTS 450 wins the legacy compute test, while the R5 M255 wins in forward-looking API compatibility.

Nearest rival comparisons further contextualize these scores. The GTS 450’s OpenCL score sits within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867), placing it in a tight cluster of similar-performance mobile and desktop parts. The R5 M255, meanwhile, is 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844) and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727). Neither card breaks away from its peer group; both are firmly mid-pack performers with no standout advantage over their immediate competitors. The GTS 450’s 5.2% win over the R5 M255 is the largest delta in this comparison, suggesting that while both are comparable, the NVIDIA card holds a consistent edge in OpenCL workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip based on the Fermi architecture, built on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with the newer GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This newer node allows AMD to fit 1,550 million transistors into a smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The process advantage is clear: AMD packs 32.5% more transistors into roughly half the die area, which typically enables better power efficiency and higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds reflect this architectural leap. The R5 M255 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost of 940 MHz, while the GTS 450’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The R5 M255’s memory operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), compared to the GTS 450’s 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). Despite the higher effective memory speed on the GTS 450, the R5 M255’s memory configuration differs fundamentally: the GTS 450 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 32.00 GB/s. That 44.5% bandwidth deficit for the R5 M255 is a direct consequence of DDR3 versus GDDR5 memory technology, and it impacts memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources tell a more nuanced story. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTS 450 counters with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the GTS 450’s higher TMU and ROP counts give it a texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s versus the R5 M255’s 22.56 GTexel/s, and a pixel rate of 6.264 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s. The R5 M255 wins on pixel fill rate by 20.1% but loses on texture fill rate by 11.1%. In FP32 compute, the R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS, which is 20.1% higher than the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (721.9 GFLOPS), while the GTS 450 has no FP16 capability listed. This suggests the AMD card is better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math, even if its OpenCL score lags.

Feature support diverges sharply. The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer DirectX 12 feature level and Vulkan support give the R5 M255 a clear API advantage for modern games and compute applications. The GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which offers higher per-lane bandwidth—though the x8 width may limit peak throughput compared to a full x16 link. The GTS 450 requires a 106 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 6-pin power connector, plus a suggested 300 W power supply, whereas the R5 M255 has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU requirement listed, indicating it is designed for lower-power mobile implementations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 4650. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, and the GTS 450 wins it.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 support any API that the GTS 450 cannot?

A: Yes. The R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support and only DirectX 12 (11_0). The R5 M255 also supports FP16 compute at 721.9 GFLOPS, which the GTS 450 lacks.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTS 450 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 32.00 GB/s—a 44.5% bandwidth deficit despite having twice the memory capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The R5 M255 delivers 721.9 GFLOPS in FP32, which is 20.1% higher than the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS. The R5 M255 also matches this figure in FP16 (721.9 GFLOPS), while the GTS 450 has no FP16 capability listed.

Q: What are the process node and transistor differences?

A: The GTS 450 is built on TSMC’s 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The R5 M255 uses TSMC’s 28 nm process with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 12.4M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm² for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank among all GPUs?

A: Both the GTS 450 and the R5 M255 sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs. The GTS 450’s average benchmark score is 4893, while the R5 M255’s average is 4788, reflecting the GTS 450’s slight edge in the available tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF106 | Topaz |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 400 | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 940 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.73 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.264 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.06 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 601.3 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not specified | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 106 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Not specified |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | Not supported | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 210 mm (8.3 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2010-09-12 | 2014-10-11 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 200 | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 500 | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 129 USD | Not specified |

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two GPUs that are statistically tied in overall performance but separated by architecture and era. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins the only direct benchmark, scoring 4893 against 4650 in OpenCL, a 5.2% margin that is meaningful for compute workloads. Its GDDR5 memory provides 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the R5 M255’s 32.00 GB/s, which gives it an advantage in memory-intensive tasks. The GTS 450 also offers higher texture fill rate (25.06 GTexel/s) and more ROPs (16 versus 8), which may benefit certain rendering paths.

However, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 counters with a modern feature set that the GTS 450 cannot match. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTS 450 lacks Vulkan entirely and only reaches DirectX 11_0 feature level. The R5 M255 delivers 20.1% higher FP32 compute (721.9 GFLOPS) and adds FP16 support, which is increasingly relevant for AI and compute applications. Its 28 nm process node with 1,550 million transistors on a smaller die suggests better power efficiency, though no TDP is listed to confirm this. The R5 M255 also doubles the memory capacity to 2 GB, which helps with larger textures and datasets, even if the DDR3 interface limits bandwidth.

Who should pick which? For users prioritizing legacy OpenCL compute performance and memory bandwidth, the GTS 450 is the stronger choice—its 5.2% lead in the head-to-head test and higher bandwidth are the decisive factors. For users who need modern API support, Vulkan compatibility, or FP16 compute, the R5 M255 is the only viable option, despite its OpenCL deficit. The GTS 450’s 106 W TDP and dual-slot design indicate it is a desktop part requiring external power, while the R5 M255’s lack of power specifications suggests it targets mobile or low-power systems. Both are end-of-life products, but the R5 M255’s newer release date (2014 versus 2010) and forward-looking API support make it the more future-proof choice, even if the GTS 450 holds the raw compute edge in the available benchmarks. The verdict, then, depends entirely on workload: legacy compute favors NVIDIA, modern graphics favors AMD.