NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 are both Fermi-era parts from NVIDIA, but they target different segments of the market. The data shows a single benchmark comparison, with the Quadro 4000M taking a clear lead in the only head-to-head test available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the sole benchmark test recorded—Geekbench OpenCL—the Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points, while the GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893 points. The delta is 6.5% in favor of the Quadro 4000M, making it the definitive winner in this comparison. This is not a marginal victory; it represents a meaningful performance gap in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro 4000M’s score of 5211 places it at the 30th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236 points, a 0.5% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284 points, a 1.4% deficit), and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161 points, a 1% lead). The Quadro 4000M sits comfortably in this cluster, trading blows within a few percentage points of each competitor. The data shows it is neither a standout nor a laggard in its immediate performance tier.

The GeForce GTS 450, meanwhile, scores 4893 points, placing it at the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mix of modern and older parts: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901 points, a 0.2% deficit), the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904 points, a 0.2% deficit), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867 points, a 0.5% lead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929 points, a 0.7% deficit). The GTS 450’s position among these rivals is notably tight, with all deltas under 1%. This suggests that, despite its age, its compute performance is still competitive with significantly newer entry-level parts, though it still trails the Quadro 4000M by a solid 6.5%.

The absolute difference of 318 points between the two cards is significant in a benchmark where scores cluster tightly. For example, the gap between the Quadro 4000M and its closest rival (the GTX 760M) is only 25 points, while the gap between the GTS 450 and its closest rival (the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB) is just 8 points. The 318-point spread between our two subjects is therefore a substantial chasm, not a rounding error.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Fermi architecture and manufactured on the same 40 nm process at TSMC, but they are fundamentally different chips. The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 die, which packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GeForce GTS 450 uses the smaller GF106 die, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9M per mm². The Quadro’s chip is substantially larger and more complex, which directly explains its higher compute output.

The execution resources differ accordingly. The Quadro 4000M features 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTS 450 is cut down significantly, with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Quadro 4000M has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. These are not minor tweaks; they are structural advantages that scale across every workload.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro 4000M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.73 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory bandwidth advantage of over 22 GB/s is critical for compute tasks that are memory-bound, and its larger frame buffer doubles the capacity for data residency. The memory clock rates also differ, with the Quadro running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus the GTS 450’s 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTS 450 runs its memory faster per pin, but the Quadro’s wider bus more than compensates.

The resulting throughput numbers tell the story. The Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s pixel rate and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GTS 450 manages 6.264 GPixel/s and 25.06 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS versus the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS. The Quadro leads in every measured throughput category, albeit by smaller margins in pixel and texture rates than in raw shader count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 has 192. This is a 75% advantage for the Quadro 4000M.

Q: Is the Quadro 4000M faster in the only benchmark test?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 4000M scores 5211 against the GTS 450’s 4893, a 6.5% lead.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, despite their different generations.

Q: How does the memory bus width compare?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus, while the GTS 450 uses a 128-bit bus. The Quadro’s bus is twice as wide.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W. The GTS 450 draws slightly more power despite being slower.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors, compared to 1,170 million on the GTS 450.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF104 (Quadro 4000M) vs GF106 (GTS 450)
• Generation: Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) vs GeForce 400
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs 1,170 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs 238 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs 4.9M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) vs 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 1024 MB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.00 GB/s vs 57.73 GB/s
• Shading Units: 336 vs 192
• TMUs: 56 vs 32
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 6.650 GPixel/s vs 6.264 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 26.60 GTexel/s vs 25.06 GTexel/s
• FP32: 638.4 GFLOPS vs 601.3 GFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W vs 106 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not specified vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a
• Dimensions: Not specified vs 210 mm (8.3 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height
• Release Date: 2011-02-21 vs 2010-09-12
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Mobile vs GeForce 200
• Successor: Quadro Kepler-M vs GeForce 500
• Launch MSRP: Not specified vs 129 USD (stated once as launch MSRP)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Quadro 4000M is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head test by 6.5%, and its architectural specifications support this result across the board. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, double the memory bus width, and significantly higher memory bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M is the superior compute performer in this pairing.

However, the GTS 450 is not without its own merits. It draws only 6 W more power (106 W vs 100 W) despite being a desktop card with a dual-slot cooler and a 6-pin power connector. It also has a faster memory clock per pin (3.6 Gbps effective vs 2.5 Gbps), though this does not overcome the Quadro’s wider bus. The GTS 450’s launch MSRP was 129 USD, which positions it as a consumer desktop part, while the Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation module with no standalone pricing data.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the Quadro 4000M is the clear choice based on the data. For a user who needs a desktop card with conventional PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and standard display outputs, the GTS 450 offers a functional, if slower, alternative. The Quadro 4000M’s MXM-B form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs make it unsuitable for standard desktop builds without an adapter.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins in every benchmark and specification category that matters for compute throughput. It leads in FP32 performance (638.4 GFLOPS vs 601.3 GFLOPS), pixel rate (6.650 GPixel/s vs 6.264 GPixel/s), and texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs 25.06 GTexel/s). Its 2 GB memory capacity and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large datasets that would exceed the GTS 450’s 1 GB frame buffer. The Quadro 4000M is the winner for any task that stresses memory capacity or bandwidth.

The GeForce GTS 450 wins in power efficiency per unit of performance, drawing only 6 W more power while delivering 6.5% less performance. It also wins in clock speed for memory, running at 3.6 Gbps effective versus the Quadro’s 2.5 Gbps. The GTS 450 is the winner for a desktop user who needs a standard PCIe card with DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, as the Quadro 4000M’s outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. The GTS 450 also has the advantage of a documented physical footprint—210 mm length and 111 mm height—whereas the Quadro 4000M has no listed dimensions.

In terms of launch timing, the GTS 450 predates the Quadro 4000M by several months, but both are end-of-life products with successors (GeForce 500 and Quadro Kepler-M respectively). For compute tasks, the Quadro 4000M is the definitive winner; for desktop compatibility and conventional form factor, the GTS 450 holds the edge.