AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 has an average benchmark score of 4893, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4170. The GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, and the R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile.

Q: What do the nearest rival scores tell us about the GTS 450?

A: The GTS 450 is extremely close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, a 0.2% deficit), the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, a 0.2% deficit), and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, a 0.7% deficit). It edges out the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867) by 0.5%.

Q: How does the R5 M330 stack up against its closest competitors?

A: The R5 M330 leads the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) by 1.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) by 0.4%. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 1.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 0.5%.

Q: Which GPU wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the only recorded head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTS 450 scores 4893 versus 4302 for the R5 M330, a 13.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it does so by a substantial margin: 13.7% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average score of 4893 also places it ahead of the R5 M330's 4170 average by roughly 17% when looking at the aggregate database numbers. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the GTS 450 is the stronger choice.

However, the R5 M330 is not without its own logic. It is a mobile-oriented IGP with a 18 W TDP, meaning it draws far less power than the GTS 450's 106 W. It also offers 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB, and it supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the GTS 450 does not list. The R5 M330 is designed for portability and efficiency, not peak throughput.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the goal is maximum compute performance from the database records, the GTS 450 wins outright. If the goal is low power consumption, modern API support, and double the memory capacity in a compact IGP form factor, the R5 M330 is the sensible pick. The GTS 450 is end-of-life, and so is the R5 M330, but they serve different segments: one is a legacy desktop card, the other a legacy mobile integrated solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTS 450 scores 4893, and the R5 M330 scores 4302. That is a 13.7% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is a significant gap, not a marginal one. In practical terms, the GTS 450 delivers noticeably higher raw compute throughput in this specific test.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the GTS 450's standing. Its 4893 average score is nearly identical to the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and FirePro W5130M (4904), both within 0.2%. That places the GTS 450 in an unusual position: a 2010-era Fermi part performing at a similar level to much newer GPUs in this particular benchmark. The R5 M330, meanwhile, sits closer to the GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and Quadro K3000M (4241), trailing both by 0.5% and 1.7% respectively. The R5 M330's only wins among its nearest rivals are against the RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) and Quadro K2100M (4151), with margins of 1.9% and 0.4%.

The head-to-head delta of 13.7% is larger than any of the nearest-rival gaps for either card. That suggests the two GPUs are not just slightly different in performance; they occupy different performance tiers in the database. The GTS 450's shading units (192) are fewer than the R5 M330's 320, yet the GTS 450 still wins decisively. This implies the difference is not simply about shader count but about memory bandwidth, architecture efficiency, and clock behavior.

The GTS 450 also has a much higher memory bandwidth: 57.73 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4x difference in raw bandwidth, which likely explains why the OpenCL score favors the NVIDIA card so heavily. Memory-bound workloads would favor the GTS 450, and the data supports that interpretation.

Specification Differences

Memory Size: The GTS 450 has 1024 MB, while the R5 M330 has 2 GB.

Memory Type and Bandwidth: The GTS 450 uses GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M330 uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading Units: The GTS 450 has 192 shading units. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units.

TMUs and ROPs: The GTS 450 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The R5 M330 has 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Pixel and Texture Rates: The GTS 450 achieves 6.264 GPixel/s and 25.06 GTexel/s. The R5 M330 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s.

FP32 Performance: The GTS 450 delivers 601.3 GFLOPS. The R5 M330 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS.

Clocks: The GTS 450 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The R5 M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Process Node: The GTS 450 is on 40 nm, while the R5 M330 is on 28 nm.

Transistors: The GTS 450 contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The R5 M330 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

TDP: The GTS 450 is rated at 106 W. The R5 M330 is rated at 18 W.

Bus Interface: The GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The R5 M330 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Power Connectors: The GTS 450 requires 1x 6-pin. The R5 M330 has none.

Slot Width: The GTS 450 is dual-slot. The R5 M330 is IGP.

DirectX Support: The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Vulkan Support: The GTS 450 has no listed Vulkan support. The R5 M330 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The GTS 450 is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors packed into a 238 mm² die. The transistor density is 4.9M per mm². The R5 M330 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, based on the Exo chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3M per mm².

The architectural divide is stark. Fermi was designed for desktop performance with high power draw and large die area. GCN 1.0 was designed for efficiency and scalability, particularly in mobile and integrated contexts. The R5 M330's 28 nm node is significantly denser, allowing more transistors per square millimeter despite having fewer total transistors. That density advantage contributes to its much lower TDP: 18 W versus 106 W.

The memory subsystems reflect the architectural priorities. The GTS 450 pairs GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, achieving 57.73 GB/s. The R5 M330 pairs DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, achieving only 14.40 GB/s. This is a 4x bandwidth gap, and it explains why the GTS 450 wins OpenCL despite having fewer shading units. The R5 M330 compensates with more shading units (320 versus 192) and higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS), but the memory bottleneck limits its real-world compute potential.

The R5 M330 also supports newer APIs. It lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M330's DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer than the GTS 450's DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTS 450 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation, with the GeForce 200 as predecessor and GeForce 500 as successor. The R5 M330 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, with Solar System as predecessor and Polaris Mobile as successor.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins in raw compute performance. The head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL result shows a 13.7% lead over the R5 M330. Its average benchmark score of 4893 is also well above the R5 M330's 4170. The 57.73 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it a decisive edge in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The GTS 450 also has higher texture rate (25.06 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s) and more ROPs (16 versus 8), which helps in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its dual-slot desktop design with a 6-pin power connector indicates it was built to sustain higher performance over longer durations.

The R5 M330 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 18 W TDP is a fraction of the GTS 450's 106 W. It requires no power connectors and is classified as an IGP, making it suitable for compact or mobile systems. The 2 GB memory capacity is double the GTS 450's 1 GB, which helps in workloads that need larger working sets, even if the bandwidth is much lower. The R5 M330 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, giving it access to modern graphics APIs that the GTS 450 cannot use. Its higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS) suggest it can handle certain compute tasks efficiently despite the memory handicap.

For a desktop user seeking maximum OpenCL performance from legacy hardware, the GTS 450 is the clear winner. The data shows a decisive benchmark victory and a much stronger memory subsystem. For a user needing low power consumption, modern API support, and double the memory in an integrated form factor, the R5 M330 is the appropriate choice. The two GPUs are not direct competitors in the traditional sense; they represent different design philosophies from different eras. The GTS 450 prioritizes throughput, the R5 M330 prioritizes efficiency. The benchmark data respects that distinction, even as it clearly favors the NVIDIA card in raw performance.