NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single comparative benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 records a score of 4893, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trails with 4241. This produces a 15.4% advantage for the GTS 450, a substantial margin that places the desktop card firmly ahead in raw compute throughput.

The GTS 450's score positions it near a cluster of modern entry-level parts. Its closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901, a delta of -0.2% (essentially a statistical tie), and the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904, also -0.2% behind. The GTS 450 sits slightly above the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, which scores 4867, a +0.5% gap in favor of the GTS 450. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 posts 4929, meaning the GTS 450 trails by 0.7%. This clustering indicates the Fermi-era card still delivers compute performance comparable to much younger silicon in this specific OpenCL workload.

The Quadro K3000M, meanwhile, lands in a lower percentile tier. Its closest rival is the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295, which beats the K3000M by 1.3%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, a 1% lead over the K3000M. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 posts 4268, also ahead by 0.6%. Only the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti sits below the K3000M, scoring 4193, a 1.2% deficit. The K3000M's 25th percentile ranking versus the GTS 450's 28th confirms the desktop card holds the overall performance edge, though both occupy the lower half of the database's GPU population.

The 15.4% delta between the two is not a marginal difference. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTS 450 completes the same workload roughly one-seventh faster than the K3000M. This gap is consistent with their respective positions in the percentile rankings: the GTS 450 sits three percentile points higher, suggesting a meaningful, not trivial, separation in compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different NVIDIA generations and architectures, which explains much of their performance divergence. The GeForce GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 400 generation. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors packed into a 238 mm² die. The transistor density measures 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a much larger transistor count of 3,540 million. The die size is 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the K3000M to pack over three times as many transistors into a die only 56 mm² larger.

Core counts also differ sharply. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The K3000M more than doubles the shading units to 576, increases TMUs to 48, and doubles ROPs to 32. These specifications give the K3000M higher theoretical pixel and texture rates: 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s, versus 6.264 GPixel/s and 25.06 GTexel/s for the GTS 450. The K3000M's FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS also exceeds the GTS 450's 601.3 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The GTS 450 comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth. The K3000M doubles the capacity to 2 GB, uses a 256-bit bus, and achieves 89.60 GB/s. The K3000M's memory clock is lower at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) compared to 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the GTS 450, but the wider bus compensates with a 55% bandwidth advantage.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTS 450 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only memory clock. The K3000M lists a base and boost clock of 654 MHz, indicating a fixed operating frequency. The two cards also differ in API support: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K3000M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry.

Power characteristics are notably different. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU. The K3000M has a lower 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, has no power connectors, and lists no PSU requirement. The K3000M is clearly designed for mobile workstations, while the GTS 450 is a desktop expansion card.

Physical dimensions also tell different stories. The GTS 450 measures 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K3000M has no listed dimensions, consistent with its MXM module format. The GTS 450 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, while the K3000M's display outputs are marked as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, which is 15.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

A: The GTS 450 uses 1,170 million transistors on a 40 nm process. The K3000M uses 3,540 million transistors on a 28 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K3000M lists Vulkan support, with version 1.2.175. The GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The K3000M has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors.

Q: How do the percentile rankings compare?

A: The GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the K3000M sits at the 25th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports distinct conclusions for different use cases. In the only available benchmark, the GeForce GTS 450 outperforms the Quadro K3000M by 15.4%. If raw OpenCL compute is the sole criterion, the GTS 450 is the clear choice. Its 4893 score places it among rivals like the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB and FirePro W5130M, all within a 1% band, whereas the K3000M's 4241 score lands it near the GTX 460M and FirePro W2100.

However, the K3000M offers structural advantages that the GTS 450 lacks. It has double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), a wider 256-bit bus, higher bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s), and substantially more shading units (576 versus 192). The K3000M also supports Vulkan, which the GTS 450 does not. These factors matter for workloads that are memory-bound or that utilize newer graphics APIs.

The K3000M's lower TDP of 75 W versus 106 W, combined with its MXM form factor and lack of power connectors, makes it suited for portable workstation environments where power and space are constrained. The GTS 450's dual-slot design and 6-pin connector indicate a desktop-oriented card with higher power draw.

The architectural generation gap is decisive: the K3000M's Kepler architecture on 28 nm delivers triple the transistor count of the Fermi-based GTS 450 on 40 nm. Despite this, the GTS 450 wins the compute benchmark, suggesting that the GTS 450's higher clocked memory and optimized Fermi implementation compensate for its older, smaller design in this specific test.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: GF106 (GTS 450) versus GK104 (K3000M)
• Architecture: Fermi versus Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 400 versus Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)
• Process Node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 3,540 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB versus 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 57.73 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 versus 576
• TMUs: 32 versus 48
• ROPs: 16 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 6.264 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 25.06 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s
• FP32: 601.3 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 106 W versus 75 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus MXM Module
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan: None versus 1.2.175
• Length: 210 mm versus None
• Height: 111 mm versus None
• Release Date: 2010-09-12 versus 2012-05-31
• Predecessor: GeForce 200 versus Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: GeForce 500 versus Quadro Maxwell-M
• Launch MSRP: 129 USD versus None

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTS 450 wins in compute benchmark performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4893 beats the K3000M's 4241 by 15.4%, and it holds a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus 25. For any application that relies primarily on OpenCL compute throughput, the GTS 450 is the superior choice according to the data.

The Quadro K3000M wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 2 GB versus 1024 MB and 89.60 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s, the K3000M can handle larger datasets and move data faster across its 256-bit bus. It also offers more shading units (576 versus 192), higher pixel and texture rates, and greater FP32 throughput. These specifications suggest the K3000M is better suited for geometry-heavy or memory-intensive workloads, even though its measured OpenCL score is lower.

The K3000M wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for compact or mobile systems, while the GTS 450's 106 W TDP and dual-slot design require a desktop chassis with adequate power. The K3000M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, enabling modern graphics API workloads that the GTS 450 cannot access.

The GTS 450 wins in raw OpenCL score relative to the field. Its nearest rivals, the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB and FirePro W5130M, are within 0.2% of its score, showing it remains competitive even against much newer hardware in this benchmark. The K3000M's nearest rivals, by contrast, are generally faster, with only the GTX 1050 Ti trailing it by 1.2%.

In summary, choose the GTS 450 for peak OpenCL compute performance and desktop expansion card compatibility. Choose the K3000M for mobile workstations, larger memory footprints, higher bandwidth, and Vulkan support, accepting a 15.4% compute deficit in exchange.