AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scored 4893 while the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scored 3963. That gives the GTS 450 a 23.5% advantage, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput for an application that scales well across shading units.

What makes this result interesting is that both chips have the same count of shading units: 192. Yet the GTS 450 converts those units into significantly more floating-point work. The GTS 450 delivers 601.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Vega 3 manages 422.4 GFLOPS. The clock speed difference explains much of this: the Vega 3 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz, whereas the GTS 450 runs its memory at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) though its core clocks are not listed in the database. Still, the measured score gap of 23.5% suggests that the GTS 450's higher sustained throughput, combined with its dedicated GDDR5 memory, gives it a clear edge in OpenCL workloads.

The GTS 450 also holds a lead in overall percentile ranking. It sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Vega 3 sits at the 25th percentile. That is a narrow gap overall, but it aligns with the head-to-head result. The average benchmark score for the GTS 450 is 4893, while the Vega 3 averages 4268 across its recorded tests. The Vega 3 does show a stronger result in the Geekbench Metal test with a score of 4880, which is nearly identical to the GTS 450's OpenCL score of 4893, but Metal is an Apple-specific API and the GTS 450 has no recorded Metal score to compare directly. In the only directly comparable test, OpenCL, the GTS 450 wins decisively.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4893 versus 3963 for the AMD Radeon Vega 3, a 23.5% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the GTS 450 and the Vega 3 have 192 shading units. Despite this, the GTS 450 produces 601.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to 422.4 GFLOPS for the Vega 3.

Q: How do the GPUs compare in overall database ranking?

A: The GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 3 sits at the 25th percentile. The GTS 450 has an average benchmark score of 4893, and the Vega 3 has an average of 4268.

Q: What is the closest rival to each GPU according to the database?

A: For the GTS 450, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB with a score of 4901, just 0.2% higher. For the Vega 3, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M with a score of 4282, 0.3% higher.

Q: Does the Vega 3 have any benchmark where it performs notably well?

A: The Vega 3 records a Geekbench Metal score of 4880, which is close to the GTS 450's OpenCL score. However, there is no direct Metal comparison recorded between the two, so the OpenCL result remains the only head-to-head data point.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTS 450 has a pixel rate of 6.264 GPixel/s, while the Vega 3 has a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s. The GTS 450 also leads in texture rate at 25.06 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Picasso chip, built by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 40 nm versus 12 nm, which explains why the Vega 3 is far more power efficient despite not being faster.

Transistor counts tell a curious story. The Vega 3's Picasso chip contains 4,940 million transistors on a die size of 210 mm², giving it a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTS 450's GF106 chip contains only 1,170 million transistors on a larger die of 238 mm², yielding a density of just 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Vega 3 packs more than four times the transistor density, a direct consequence of the much smaller process node. Yet the GTS 450 still wins in raw compute, which suggests that the Fermi architecture's dedicated graphics design, with its own memory subsystem, compensates for its older process.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that shares system memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This is likely the single biggest factor in the OpenCL result: dedicated memory with predictable bandwidth versus shared memory that competes with the CPU and other system components. The Vega 3's memory clock is simply listed as system shared, while the GTS 450 runs its GDDR5 at 902 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective data rate.

The feature sets also differ. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vega 3 also has FP16 capability at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1), while the GTS 450 has no listed FP16 performance. This makes the Vega 3 more modern in API support and half-precision compute, even though it loses in FP32 throughput.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several clear points of divergence beyond the architectural split. The GTS 450 has 32 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs, while the Vega 3 has 12 TMUs and only 4 ROPs. This explains the large gap in texture rate: 25.06 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate difference: 6.264 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s. Fewer ROPs on the Vega 3 means less efficient fill-rate-bound rendering, which matters for older games and certain compute workloads.

Power consumption differs dramatically. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The Vega 3 has a TDP of only 15 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP with no suggested PSU. The GTS 450 is a dual-slot card measuring 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Vega 3 has no dimensions listed because it is integrated into a processor.

The GTS 450 was released on September 12, 2010 with a launch MSRP of 129 USD, while the Vega 3 was released on November 19, 2019. The GTS 450 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs. The Vega 3 has a bus interface listed simply as IGP with display outputs that are motherboard dependent. The GTS 450 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation with a predecessor of GeForce 200 and successor of GeForce 500. The Vega 3 belongs to the Vega IGP generation with a predecessor of GCN 3.0 IGP and successor of Vega II IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and it also leads in several specification categories that matter for compute and traditional rasterization. Its dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth gives it a clear advantage in any workload that is memory bandwidth sensitive. Its 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs make it stronger in texture-heavy and fill-rate-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 601.3 GFLOPS is 42% higher than the Vega 3's 422.4 GFLOPS, which directly explains the OpenCL result.

The Vega 3 wins in efficiency and modernity. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the GTS 450's 106 W, making it suitable for laptops and low-power systems where a discrete card would be impossible. It supports modern APIs: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, which the GTS 450 cannot match. The Vega 3 also has FP16 compute at 844.8 GFLOPS, which the GTS 450 lacks entirely. For workloads that leverage half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks, the Vega 3 would have an advantage despite its lower FP32 numbers.

The Vega 3's Metal score of 4880 is also worth noting. While there is no direct Metal comparison, that score is close to the GTS 450's OpenCL score of 4893, suggesting that under Apple's Metal API, the Vega 3 performs at a level comparable to the GTS 450 in OpenCL. This indicates the Vega 3 may be the better choice in ecosystems where Metal is the primary compute interface.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is the stronger GPU in OpenCL workloads, with a 23.5% lead over the AMD Radeon Vega 3. Its dedicated memory subsystem, higher FP32 throughput, and greater texture and pixel rates give it a decisive edge in the only directly comparable benchmark. Anyone relying on OpenCL compute should choose the GTS 450 based on the recorded measurements.

However, the Vega 3 is not without its own strengths. Its 15 W power draw makes it usable in systems where a 106 W discrete card would simply not fit, such as thin laptops or compact APU builds. Its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) means it can run modern graphics APIs that the GTS 450 cannot, and its FP16 capability opens the door to half-precision workloads. The near-parity Metal score of 4880 suggests that in Apple-centric environments, the Vega 3 is a competitive option.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For pure compute throughput in a desktop system with room for a dual-slot card, the GTS 450 is the clear winner. For an integrated, low-power system that needs modern API support and efficiency, the Vega 3 is the sensible choice. The database does not record a scenario where the Vega 3 wins a head-to-head test, but its architectural advantages point to specific niches where it would be preferable. The GTS 450 wins the benchmark war, while the Vega 3 wins the efficiency and modernity argument.