AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 represent two very different approaches to the same problem: delivering usable graphics performance in their respective eras. The R5 M430 is a modern, power-sipping integrated-class part built for mobility, while the GTS 450 is an older, dedicated desktop card with a hefty power draw. The benchmark data shows a narrow but consistent edge for the AMD part, but the story is more nuanced than a single score suggests.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available benchmark results, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins the only head-to-head comparison recorded. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M430 scores 5152 against the GTS 450’s 4893, a delta of 5.3%. This makes the AMD part the outright winner in compute performance as measured by OpenCL. The R5 M430 also has a second benchmark score, a Geekbench Vulkan result of 4884, which the GTS 450 cannot contest because it has no Vulkan support listed.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 does not win any benchmark comparisons in this data set. However, it holds advantages in several architectural and memory-related specifications that do not translate into a benchmark victory but are relevant for certain workloads. The GTS 450’s memory subsystem is substantially wider and faster, with a 128-bit bus and 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth versus the R5 M430’s 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s. This suggests the NVIDIA card would be more responsive in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, even if the aggregate compute score is lower. The GTS 450 also has a higher texture fill rate (25.06 GTexel/s vs 17.10 GTexel/s) and more ROPS (16 vs 8), which historically matters for fill-rate-bound legacy games. The data does not include a gaming benchmark, so these wins are inferred from specification differences, not directly measured.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses the Fermi architecture on a much older 40 nm TSMC process, with 1,170 million transistors spread across a 238 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the AMD chip achieves 12.3M transistors per mm², while the NVIDIA chip manages only 4.9M per mm². This explains why the R5 M430 can be an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the GTS 450 is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

The compute resource allocation differs sharply. The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. AMD throws more shader cores at the problem; NVIDIA counters with more texture and pixel processing hardware. The R5 M430’s clock speeds are listed as 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the GTS 450’s core clocks are not provided. The memory configurations are equally divergent: the AMD card uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the NVIDIA card uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R5 M430 supports PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. API support also differs: both support DirectX 12 (though the AMD card lists 11_1 feature level, the NVIDIA card lists 11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the AMD card lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support — the GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. That is a 5.3% advantage for AMD. To put this in context, look at the nearest rivals for each card. The R5 M430 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5018. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, -0.3%), followed by the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, -0.9%), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, +0.4%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979, +0.8%). The GTS 450, meanwhile, sits at the 28th percentile with an average score of 4893. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, -0.2%), the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, -0.7%), and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, +0.5%).

These percentile rankings show that the R5 M430 is not just faster than the GTS 450; it is positioned slightly higher in the overall GPU landscape. The 5.3% delta between the two cards is small, but it is consistent with the 2-percentile-point gap in their overall standings. The R5 M430 also has a Vulkan score of 4884, which is nearly identical to the GTS 450’s OpenCL score, suggesting that the AMD card’s Vulkan performance is roughly on par with the NVIDIA card’s OpenCL performance — but the NVIDIA card has no Vulkan score at all, so it cannot be compared in that API. The data shows a single win for the AMD card, with no wins recorded for the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is the faster GPU in compute workloads. Its 5.3% lead in OpenCL and its additional Vulkan capability make it the more capable part for general-purpose compute and modern API support. The R5 M430 also achieves this with dramatically lower power requirements — it is an IGP with no power connector listed, while the GTS 450 is a dual-slot card drawing 106 W and needing a 6-pin connector. For anyone building a system where the GPU is integrated or where power efficiency matters, the R5 M430 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is not without merit, but its advantages are not reflected in the benchmark results. It has 3.6x the memory bandwidth (57.73 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s), double the ROPs, and a higher texture fill rate. These specs would matter for older, fill-rate-bound games or resolution scaling, but the data does not include any gaming benchmarks to confirm this. The GTS 450 also has a higher FP32 rating (601.3 GFLOPS vs 547.2 GFLOPS), yet it still loses the OpenCL test. This suggests the R5 M430’s architecture extracts more real-world performance from its compute resources. The GTS 450’s only definitive advantage is its launch MSRP of 129 USD, but that is historical context, not a current buying recommendation — both parts are end-of-life.

Choose the R5 M430 if you need a modern, efficient GPU with Vulkan support and better OpenCL compute scores. Choose the GTS 450 if you have a legacy system that specifically requires a dedicated dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector and you prioritize raw memory bandwidth over compute throughput. For any new build, the data favors the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152, beating the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450’s 4893 by a margin of 5.3%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTS 450 does not list Vulkan support in its API specifications, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA GTS 450 has 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 memory, while the AMD R5 M430 has only 16.00 GB/s from its 64-bit DDR3 memory.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The NVIDIA GTS 450 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the AMD R5 M430 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The AMD chip achieves a much higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm².

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 has 320 shading units, compared to 192 on the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD R5 M430 is an IGP with no power connector listed, whereas the NVIDIA GTS 450 is a dual-slot card with a 106 W TDP, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M430 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz / 2 Gbps effective | 902 MHz / 3.6 Gbps effective |

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 6.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 25.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 547.2 GFLOPS | 601.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 106 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | Not listed |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2010-09-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 129 USD |