NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear single-test comparison between these two GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 points. That is a delta of 8.7% in favor of the 930A, making it the winner of the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

The 930A holds an advantage of 424 points over the GTS 450 in raw compute performance. This result places the 930A at the 31st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile. The gap between them is modest in percentile terms, but the underlying scores show a consistent edge for the newer Maxwell-based part.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the positioning. The 930A’s average score of 5317 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which scores 5322, a delta of only -0.1%. It also tracks closely with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (a 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 (a 0.6% delta). The AMD Radeon R7 M445 sits slightly higher at 5358, meaning the 930A trails it by 0.8%. In short, the 930A competes in a tight cluster of mobile and low-power GPUs, all within roughly 1% of each other.

The GTS 450’s average score of 4893 also places it in a tight cluster, but at a lower performance tier. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, scores 4901, a delta of -0.2%. The AMD FirePro W5130M matches at 4904, also -0.2%. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is below at 4867, a 0.5% delta, and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 leads the group at 4929, a -0.7% delta. The GTS 450 is therefore grouped with a mix of older and newer parts, but all at a compute level noticeably below the 930A’s cluster.

The 8.7% lead in OpenCL compute is the only measured difference in the head-to-head data. No other benchmark results are recorded for either card, so the analysis rests entirely on that single test. The verdict is straightforward: the 930A wins the recorded win count at 1 for the 930A and 0 for the GTS 450.

Where Each One Wins

The 930A wins the only recorded benchmark, so it takes the compute-focused use cases. OpenCL performance often correlates with general compute workloads, physics simulations, image processing tasks, and similar GPU-accelerated applications. The 8.7% lead over the GTS 450 means that for users running software that relies on OpenCL compute, the 930A delivers a measurable performance advantage. It is not a dominant margin; it is a consistent single win in the data.

The GTS 450 has no recorded wins in the benchmark set. That does not mean the GTS 450 is without merits elsewhere in the specification sheet, but in the compute metric that dominates this database, it trails. The GTS 450’s strengths lie elsewhere in its specification profile, not in the OpenCL test where it loses by 8.7%.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the choice is clear from the data. The 930A’s higher score, its greater shading unit count of 384 versus 192, and its newer Maxwell architecture all align with its benchmark victory. The GTS 450, despite having more texture mapping units (32 versus 24), more ROPs (16 versus 8), and a much wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), still falls behind in the compute test. This suggests that raw memory bandwidth and ROP throughput do not directly translate to OpenCL compute superiority; the 930A’s execution architecture and higher shader count prevail.

The 930A also wins on efficiency-driven scenarios. Its 33 W TDP is drastically lower than the GTS 450’s 106 W, and it requires no power connectors while the GTS 450 needs a 1x 6-pin connector. For compact systems, portable devices, or thermally constrained environments, the 930A is the only realistic choice among these two. The GTS 450, with its dual-slot profile, 210 mm length, and 300 W suggested PSU, targets desktop builds with room to spare.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different process nodes. The 930A is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GTS 450 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. This process difference is significant: the 28 nm node allows for a far higher transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to just 4.9 million for the 40 nm GTS 450.

Transistor counts tell a nuanced story. The GTS 450 actually has more total transistors at 1,170 million, versus 1,020 million for the 930A. However, the GTS 450 spreads those transistors across a much larger die of 238 mm², while the 930A fits its 1,020 million transistors into just 77 mm². The density advantage of the 930A is a direct result of the newer process node, and it allows the 930A to achieve higher performance with far lower power consumption.

The shading unit counts are markedly different. The 930A has 384 shading units, exactly double the GTS 450’s 192. Despite this doubling, the 930A’s texture mapping unit count is lower at 24 versus 32 for the GTS 450, and its ROP count is half at 8 versus 16. The 930A’s pixel rate is 7.528 GPixel/s, higher than the GTS 450’s 6.264 GPixel/s, but its texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s is lower than the GTS 450’s 25.06 GTexel/s. The GTS 450’s higher ROP count and texture units do not rescue its compute performance in the benchmark, but they do indicate a different design balance focused on rasterization throughput.

Floating-point performance favors the 930A. Its FP32 throughput is 722.7 GFLOPS, versus 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450. That is a raw compute advantage of roughly 20% in theoretical peak, which aligns directionally with the 8.7% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, though the real-world gap is smaller than the theoretical one.

API support also differentiates the two. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 930A adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTS 450 has no recorded Vulkan support. This matters for modern applications that lean on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute. The 930A’s newer architecture gives it access to a more current API stack.

Memory architecture differs completely. The 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450 uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.73 GB/s. The GTS 450’s memory bandwidth is 3.6 times higher, a massive advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Yet the OpenCL benchmark still favors the 930A, indicating that compute workloads in this test were not bandwidth-bound.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the GTS 450 has 1 GB of GDDR5. The memory bus is 64-bit for the 930A and 128-bit for the GTS 450, and the bandwidth difference is stark: 16.02 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s. The memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 930A, while the GTS 450 runs at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Shading units are 384 for the 930A and 192 for the GTS 450. Texture mapping units are 24 versus 32, and ROPs are 8 versus 16. The pixel rate is 7.528 GPixel/s for the 930A and 6.264 GPixel/s for the GTS 450. The texture rate is 22.58 GTexel/s for the 930A and 25.06 GTexel/s for the GTS 450. FP32 compute is 722.7 GFLOPS for the 930A and 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450.

Power draw differs enormously. The 930A has a TDP of 33 W, while the GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W. The 930A is an IGP-class card with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The GTS 450 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the GTS 450: 210 mm in length (8.3 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The 930A’s dimensions are not recorded, but its IGP slot width indicates an integrated or very compact form factor.

Process node, die size, and transistor density all differ. The 930A uses 28 nm with a 77 mm² die and 1,020 million transistors. The GTS 450 uses 40 nm with a 238 mm² die and 1,170 million transistors. Transistor density is 13.2 million per mm² for the 930A and 4.9 million per mm² for the GTS 450.

Display outputs and bus interfaces differ. The 930A has portable-device-dependent outputs, while the GTS 450 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The 930A supports Vulkan 1.4; the GTS 450 does not. DirectX and OpenGL support are identical at 12 (11_0) and 4.6. Release dates differ by roughly four and a half years: the GTS 450 launched in September 2010, the 930A in March 2015. The GTS 450 has a recorded launch MSRP of 129 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. The 930A leads by 8.7%.

Q: How does the 930A compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 930A’s score of 5317 is nearly identical to the GeForce 840M (5322, a -0.1% delta), the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, a 0.0% delta), and the GeForce 940M (5284, a 0.6% delta). The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, putting it 0.8% ahead of the 930A.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The GTS 450 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the GTS 450 support Vulkan 1.4?

A: No, the GTS 450 has no recorded Vulkan support. The 930A does support Vulkan 1.4. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the TDP and power requirements?

A: The 930A has a TDP of 33 W and requires no power connectors. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: How old is the GTS 450 relative to the 930A?

A: The GTS 450 was released in September 2010, and the 930A was released in March 2015. The 930A is therefore the newer product by about four and a half years.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce 930A as the stronger compute performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.7%, achieves a higher percentile rank (31st versus 28th), and delivers more FP32 throughput (722.7 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS). It also doubles the shading unit count, uses a dramatically more efficient 28 nm process, consumes only 33 W versus 106 W, and adds Vulkan support. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the 930A is the clear choice.

The GTS 450 retains advantages in memory bandwidth (57.73 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), texture mapping units (32 versus 24), and ROPs (16 versus 8). Its GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus give it a major bandwidth edge, and its higher texture rate of 25.06 GTexel/s suggests it may handle certain texture-heavy tasks better. Its pixel rate is lower (6.264 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s), however, and its older Fermi architecture lacks Vulkan support.

Who should pick the 930A? Users running OpenCL compute workloads, those building power-constrained or compact systems, and anyone who values modern API support and a more efficient modern process node. The 33 W TDP and absence of power connectors make it suitable for portable or integrated environments. The 930A is an end-of-life product, but it is the more advanced design in nearly every architectural dimension that matters for compute.

Who should pick the GTS 450? Users with bandwidth-intensive applications that benefit from the 57.73 GB/s memory throughput, or those with a desktop system that can accommodate a 210 mm dual-slot card with a 6-pin power connector and 300 W PSU. The GTS 450’s higher texture rate and ROP count might serve rasterization-focused tasks, though the recorded benchmark does not demonstrate this. It carries a launch MSRP of 129 USD, but the benchmark evidence still favors the 930A in compute.

The final verdict from the database: the 930A wins the measured compute comparison. Its 8.7% lead in OpenCL, combined with superior shader count, higher FP32, lower power draw, and newer architecture, make it the recommended GPU for compute-focused needs. The GTS 450 is a legacy part whose bandwidth advantages do not translate into a benchmark victory in the recorded data.