AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The GTS 450, a 2010 desktop part built on Fermi, edges out the 2015 mobile-oriented R5 M335 in the single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, posting a score of 4893 against 4745 — a 3.1% margin. Both cards sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the same performance tier despite their generational gap.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins the only direct comparison, scoring 4893 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4745 for the AMD Radeon R5 M335, a 3.1% advantage.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTS 450 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, -0.2%) and AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, -0.2%), while slightly trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, -0.7%). The R5 M335 sits close to the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, +0.5%) and NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684, +1.5%), but lags the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788, -0.7%).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTS 450 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M335 packs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with just 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The R5 M335 edges ahead in raw FP32 performance at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What process nodes do these GPUs use?

A: The GTS 450 is built on TSMC's 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The R5 M335 uses TSMC's 28 nm node with 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die.

Q: Do these cards support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (the GTS 450 at 11_0 feature level, the R5 M335 at 11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Only the R5 M335 lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.170); the GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is built on the Fermi architecture, a design that prioritized compute capability and geometry throughput. Its GF106 chip packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die using TSMC's 40 nm process, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GPU is organized around 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. This configuration delivers a pixel rate of 6.264 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335, by contrast, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Exo chip. It is a much smaller and denser design: 690 million transistors on just 56 mm² at 28 nm, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter — roughly 2.5 times higher than the Fermi part. The R5 M335 fields 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Its pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s actually exceeds the GTS 450, but its texture rate of 20.60 GTexel/s falls short.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. Fermi was a desktop-first design with a wide 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface, while GCN 1.0 in the R5 M335 was optimized for mobility with a narrow 64-bit DDR3 bus. The R5 M335's higher shader count (320 vs 192) and newer process node reflect its later release, but these advantages are undermined by memory bandwidth constraints and lower TMU/ROP counts. The GTS 450 supports PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, and the AMD part's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its mobile-oriented design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a tight story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 trails at 4745. That 3.1% delta is meaningful but not transformative — it places the two cards in the same performance neighborhood, both resting at the 28th percentile among all GPUs.

The GTS 450's victory is notable given its older architecture and lower FP32 ceiling. Its 601.3 GFLOPS theoretical compute is actually 8.8% below the R5 M335's 659.2 GFLOPS, yet it still wins the OpenCL test. This suggests that the Fermi architecture's superior memory subsystem — 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth versus just 14.40 GB/s — plays a decisive role in real workloads. The 128-bit GDDR5 interface provides roughly four times the memory throughput of the R5 M335's 64-bit DDR3 bus, a gap that shader count alone cannot bridge.

Looking at nearest rivals adds context. The GTS 450's 4893 score places it within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) and essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904). It even matches the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) within 0.2%, though that modern card operates in a completely different performance class in other metrics. The R5 M335's 4745 OpenCL result sits 1.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684) but 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788). Its Vulkan score of 4758 is marginally higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting some API-specific optimization, but still below the GTS 450's OpenCL number.

The single head-to-head win for the GTS 450 counts for one victory against zero for the R5 M335. However, with only one benchmark in the dataset, this margin should be read as a narrow edge rather than a decisive superiority.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every major specification category. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process, while the R5 M335 uses the Exo chip on 28 nm — both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ substantially: 1,170 million for the NVIDIA part versus 690 million for AMD, though the R5 M335's die is far smaller at 56 mm² compared to 238 mm².

Memory configurations are starkly different. The GTS 450 offers 1024 MB of GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The R5 M335 provides 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth and a 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective). The GTS 450's bandwidth advantage is roughly 4x, while the R5 M335 doubles the capacity.

Compute resources favor the AMD part in shader count (320 vs 192) and FP32 output (659.2 vs 601.3 GFLOPS), but the GTS 450 leads in TMUs (32 vs 20), ROPs (16 vs 8), texture rate (25.06 vs 20.60 GTexel/s), and pixel rate is actually higher on the R5 M335 (8.240 vs 6.264 GPixel/s). Power requirements differ sharply: the GTS 450 draws 106 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin power connector, while the R5 M335 lists no TDP, requires no power connectors, and is portable-device dependent.

Interface and output differences are notable. The GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, measuring 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 with no fixed display outputs, no listed dimensions, and a "None" power connector entry. API support sees the R5 M335 add Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTS 450's DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan. Release dates are five years apart: September 2010 for the GTS 450, October 2015 for the R5 M335.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are statistical peers in the Geekbench OpenCL test, with the NVIDIA card holding a 3.1% edge. Both sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, and their nearest rivals cluster within a 2% band, indicating that neither card breaks out of its performance tier.

For compute-bound OpenCL workloads, the GTS 450 is the safer choice. Its 4893 score beats the R5 M335's 4745, and its memory bandwidth advantage is so pronounced that it overcomes a shader deficit. The Fermi architecture's 128-bit GDDR5 interface delivers 57.73 GB/s versus just 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M335's 64-bit DDR3 — a 4x gap that explains why the older card wins despite lower theoretical FP32. The GTS 450 also offers fixed desktop outputs (2x DVI, mini-HDMI) and a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, making it a straightforward drop-in for legacy systems.

The R5 M335 is a different proposition. It is a mobile part by design, with no fixed display outputs, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent integration. Its 2 GB memory capacity doubles the GTS 450, which could help in memory-hungry scenarios, and its Vulkan support (1.2.170) provides an API path the Fermi card lacks entirely. The newer 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 architecture deliver higher shader counts and better transistor density, but the narrow memory bus holds it back in the one benchmark where both are measured.

Choose the GTS 450 if you need a desktop card with proven OpenCL performance, higher memory bandwidth, and standard display outputs. Choose the R5 M335 if you require Vulkan support, double the VRAM, and a design suited for mobile integration — accepting a 3.1% OpenCL deficit. Neither card is competitive by modern standards; both are end-of-life products occupying the same 28th-percentile tier. The data suggests the GTS 450 is the stronger compute performer, while the R5 M335 offers architectural modernity and API breadth that the Fermi design cannot match.