NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are separated by nearly six years of GPU architecture evolution, yet the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly tight contest. The 940MX, a Maxwell-based mobile part, edges out the older Fermi-based GTS 450 in raw compute scores, but the margin is razor-thin. This head-to-head analysis digs into the numbers to see what this generational leap actually bought, and where the older card still holds its ground.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it paints a picture of near-parity. The 940MX scores 4939, while the GTS 450 scores 4893. That is a delta of just -0.9% from the 940MX’s perspective, meaning the GTS 450 is only 0.9% slower. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie—a difference that would be imperceptible in any real-world workload. The 940MX wins the head-to-head, but it does so by the slimmest of margins.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores tell a similar story. The GTS 450 has an average benchmark score of 4893, while the 940MX averages 4844. This inverts the head-to-head result, suggesting that the 940MX’s OpenCL victory may not be representative of its overall performance profile. The GTS 450’s average is actually 1.0% higher than the 940MX’s average, indicating that across multiple tests, the older card might be the more consistent performer.

The nearest rival data reinforces this ambiguity. The GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (scoring 4901, just 0.2% higher) and the AMD FirePro W5130M (scoring 4904, 0.2% higher). The 940MX also sits at the 28th percentile, with its nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (scoring 4855, 0.2% lower) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (scoring 4867, 0.5% lower). Both cards are clustered in the same performance tier, surrounded by a mix of older and newer parts that all land within a 2% performance band.

The head-to-head data shows the 940MX winning one test and zero for the GTS 450. However, this single data point does not capture the full picture. The GTS 450’s higher average score suggests that in a more comprehensive test suite, it could easily take the lead. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals section are all within ±1.1%, indicating that neither card has a decisive advantage over the other. This is a genuine coin-flip matchup, where the winner would likely be determined by the specific workload and driver optimization rather than raw architectural superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The 940MX has a higher FP32 rating of 881.7 GFLOPS compared to the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS. This represents a 46.6% advantage for the 940MX in theoretical peak floating-point performance.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTS 450 has a 128-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940MX has a narrower 64-bit bus but compensates with 2 GB of GDDR5 and faster 5 Gbps effective memory, though its bandwidth is lower at 40.10 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The 940MX is dramatically more power-efficient. Its TDP is 23 W, compared to the GTS 450’s 106 W. This means the 940MX delivers comparable performance while consuming roughly one-fifth of the power.

Q: Is the GTS 450 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTS 450 scores 4893, which is just 0.9% behind the 940MX. However, its average benchmark score of 4893 is 1.0% higher than the 940MX’s 4844 average, indicating it may perform better in other unlisted tests.

Q: What is the significance of the 940MX’s Vulkan support?

A: The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed. This means the 940MX can run modern Vulkan-based applications, whereas the GTS 450 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes compare?

A: The 940MX packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the GTS 450 has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die. This gives the 940MX a transistor density of 12.6M / mm² versus the GTS 450’s 4.9M / mm².

The Verdict

The data presents a classic generational trade-off. The 940MX wins the only direct head-to-head test, but the margin is negligible. It brings modern features like Vulkan support, a lower TDP, and double the memory capacity, making it the obvious choice for any system where power consumption and compatibility with current APIs are priorities. The GTS 450, despite being older, is not left in the dust—its average benchmark score is actually higher, and its memory bandwidth is significantly greater.

For a desktop user with an existing PCIe 2.0 slot and a power supply rated at 300 W, the GTS 450 remains a viable option, especially if memory bandwidth is more critical than raw compute. However, the 940MX’s 23 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only realistic choice for portable devices. The 940MX also has a higher pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s vs 6.264 GPixel/s) and texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs 25.06 GTexel/s), suggesting it may handle fill-rate-bound tasks slightly better. Ultimately, the 940MX is the better all-around card due to its efficiency and feature set, but the GTS 450’s performance is close enough that budget-conscious builders should not dismiss it.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process, while the 940MX uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, whereas the 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the GTS 450 has 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTS 450’s memory runs at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the 940MX’s memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 861 MHz; the GTS 450 has no listed base or boost clocks. Power requirements are starkly different: the GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, a dual-slot design, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The 940MX has a 23 W TDP, an MXM module form factor, and no power connectors. The bus interface also differs, with the GTS 450 using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the 940MX using PCIe 3.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between Fermi and Maxwell is vast. The GTS 450 is built on the Fermi architecture, which debuted in 2010, while the 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture from 2016. The process node shrunk from 40 nm to 28 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor count rose from 1,170 million to 1,870 million, even as the die size shrank from 238 mm² to 148 mm². This explains the massive difference in transistor density: 4.9M / mm² for Fermi versus 12.6M / mm² for Maxwell.

The shading unit count is a striking difference: 192 on the GTS 450 versus 512 on the 940MX. This suggests Maxwell’s shader architecture is fundamentally different, likely more efficient per unit. The ROP count, however, dropped from 16 to 8, which explains why the 940MX’s pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s) is only slightly higher than the GTS 450’s (6.264 GPixel/s) despite the newer architecture. The 940MX also adds Vulkan 1.4 support, a feature completely absent from the GTS 450, while both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 940MX’s memory clock is higher, but its narrower bus limits overall bandwidth. The GTS 450 has no RT or tensor cores, and neither does the 940MX, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are off the table for both.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 57.73 GB/s versus the 940MX’s 40.10 GB/s. This makes it better suited for workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as high-resolution texture streaming or certain compute tasks that saturate memory throughput. It also has more ROPs (16 vs 8), which could give it an edge in fill-rate-heavy scenarios, though its lower pixel rate suggests this advantage is theoretical. The GTS 450’s higher average benchmark score (4893 vs 4844) indicates it may perform better in a broader range of tests, even if it loses the single OpenCL head-to-head.

The 940MX wins in raw compute, with 881.7 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS. This makes it better for shader-heavy workloads, such as modern game effects or GPGPU applications that leverage FP32 math. Its higher texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs 25.06 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s vs 6.264 GPixel/s) give it a slight edge in texture-bound and fill-rate-bound tasks. The 940MX also offers Vulkan support, enabling access to modern APIs that the GTS 450 cannot use. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double the GTS 450’s 1 GB, which could be critical for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures, even if the bandwidth is lower. Finally, the 940MX’s 23 W TDP makes it the only feasible choice for battery-powered devices, while the GTS 450’s 106 W TDP requires a desktop PSU and cooling solution.