AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The GeForce GTS 450 and Radeon R6 M255DX land in the same performance neighborhood, with the GTS 450 scoring 4893 in Geekbench OpenCL and the R6 M255DX scoring 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan. That 0.5% gap in favor of the GTS 450 is within run-to-run noise, so the data does not crown a clear winner on raw compute alone. However, these are fundamentally different products for different systems.

Pick the GTS 450 if you need a discrete, PCIe 2.0 x16 card with its own 1024 MB GDDR5 memory and a dedicated 128-bit bus. It is a dual-slot card with a 106 W TDP, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It is end-of-life, launched with a 129 USD MSRP in September 2010, and still posts a score competitive with much newer parts. It fits a desktop with a PCIe slot and a power supply that can handle its draw.

Pick the R6 M255DX if you are working with a portable or integrated platform. It is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and system-shared memory. Its performance is portable-device dependent, meaning the actual experience depends on the host laptop. It scores 4867 in Vulkan, which is 0.5% behind the GTS 450’s OpenCL score, but it does so with far fewer physical resources dedicated to graphics memory. The R6 M255DX also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed.

For a builder assembling a desktop with spare parts, the GTS 450 is the straightforward choice because it is self-contained and has its own memory. For a laptop buyer, the R6 M255DX is the only option here, and its performance is acceptable for light duties based on the benchmark data. Neither card excels; both sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs. If you need modern API support, the R6 M255DX has the edge. If you need predictable, standalone memory bandwidth, the GTS 450 wins.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and design philosophies. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip based on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It carries 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M per mm². The R6 M255DX is roughly four years newer — released in January 2014 versus September 2010 for the GTS 450 — and the smaller, denser process reflects that.

The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a reversed trade-off: AMD packs more shaders but fewer texture and pixel units. The GTS 450 also runs its memory at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory, so its bus width, memory type, and bandwidth are all system dependent. This is a critical architectural difference — the GTS 450’s dedicated GDDR5 gives it fixed memory behavior, while the R6 M255DX’s performance varies with the host platform’s RAM.

Clock behavior differs too. The GTS 450 lists no base or boost clock in the data, only its memory clock. The R6 M255DX has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The R6 M255DX also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTS 450 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTS 450 is a dual-slot card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs; the R6 M255DX has portable-device-dependent outputs. The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, the R6 M255DX has no TDP listed because it is an IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, so the comparison relies on each card’s single benchmark entry. The GTS 450 scores 4893 in Geekbench OpenCL. The R6 M255DX scores 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan. That is a 0.5% difference in favor of the GTS 450, according to the deltaPct in the nearestRivals lists. Both cards sit at the 28th percentile against all GPUs, meaning they are statistically indistinguishable in overall standing.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card gives context. The GTS 450’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.2% ahead), and it trails the AMD Radeon R7 M265 by 0.7% (4929). The R6 M255DX’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M at 4855 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (0.5% behind). Notably, the GTS 450 and R6 M255DX are each other’s rivals: the GTS 450 is 0.5% ahead of the R6 M255DX, and the R6 M255DX is 0.5% behind the GTS 450. That is the entire head-to-head in a nutshell — a near dead heat.

The GTS 450’s pixel rate is 6.264 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 25.06 GTexel/s. The R6 M255DX has a slightly higher pixel rate at 6.840 GPixel/s but a much lower texture rate at 17.10 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTS 450 posts 601.3 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R6 M255DX — a 9.9% advantage for NVIDIA. Those numbers align with the architecture differences: the R6 M255DX’s higher pixel rate comes from its 8 ROPs running at a higher clock, while the GTS 450’s higher texture rate and compute come from more TMUs and a wider memory bus.

The GTS 450’s memory bandwidth of 57.73 GB/s is fixed and dedicated. The R6 M255DX’s bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent,” so in a laptop with slow shared memory, its effective bandwidth could be far lower than the GTS 450’s; in a system with fast dual-channel memory, it might approach or exceed it. The data does not specify, so the practical takeaway is that the GTS 450 offers predictable memory performance, while the R6 M255DX’s is a variable.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 0.5% higher than the Radeon R6 M255DX’s 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan. Both cards sit at the 28th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Does the R6 M255DX support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R6 M255DX supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications, though it does support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does memory differ between the two?

A: The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory, so its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192. However, the GTS 450 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the R6 M255DX, so the AMD part’s shader advantage does not translate into a higher FP32 score.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The GTS 450 delivers 601.3 GFLOPS, which is about 9.9% higher than the R6 M255DX’s 547.2 GFLOPS. This aligns with the GTS 450’s higher texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s for the R6 M255DX.

Q: Which card is better for a desktop build?

A: The GTS 450 is a discrete dual-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The R6 M255DX is an IGP with no slot width or power connectors, so it is only viable in a portable device that integrates it.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins on memory consistency. It has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s of fixed bandwidth. That means its performance does not depend on what else the system is doing with system memory. It also wins on FP32 compute at 601.3 GFLOPS, texture rate at 25.06 GTexel/s, and it has twice the ROPs (16 versus 8) of the R6 M255DX. For desktop users who need a card that behaves the same every time, the GTS 450 is the safe pick.

The R6 M255DX wins on pixel rate, posting 6.840 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s for the GTS 450. That is a 9.2% advantage in fill-rate-limited scenarios, which could matter for pixel-heavy workloads. It also has a higher shader count (320 versus 192) and a newer architecture (GCN 1.0 on 28 nm versus Fermi on 40 nm). Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support is a clear win for applications that use that API. And because it is an IGP with no power connectors and no TDP listed, it is the only option for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete card.

The use-case split is clean. If you are building or upgrading a desktop with a PCIe slot and a 300 W PSU, the GTS 450 gives you dedicated memory, higher compute, and predictable bandwidth. If you are using a laptop or an integrated platform where the R6 M255DX is soldered in, that is your only choice, and it offers Vulkan support and a higher pixel rate. The benchmark gap is negligible — 0.5% — so the decision hinges on platform compatibility and API needs, not on raw performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GF106 (GTS 450) versus Jet (R6 M255DX)
• Architecture: Fermi versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: GeForce 400 versus Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200)
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 690 million
• Die size: 238 mm² versus 56 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Base clock: Not listed versus 780 MHz
• Boost clock: Not listed versus 855 MHz
• Memory clock: 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus System Shared
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus System Shared
• Bus width: 128 bit versus System Shared
• Bandwidth: 57.73 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading units: 192 versus 320
• TMUs: 32 versus 20
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 6.264 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 25.06 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s
• FP32: 601.3 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 106 W versus not listed
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus IGP
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: Not listed versus 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 210 mm length, 111 mm height versus not listed
• Release date: 2010-09-12 versus 2014-01-06
• Launch MSRP: 129 USD versus not listed

Both cards share the same OpenGL 4.6 support, the same foundry (TSMC), and both are end-of-life. Neither has RT cores, tensor cores, or fp16 performance listed. The GTS 450’s predecessor is GeForce 200 and its successor is GeForce 500; the R6 M255DX has no predecessor or successor listed.