GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA mobile graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the Quadro M3000M delivering a decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the GTS 450’s 4,893, a delta of -70.6% from the perspective of the older card. This means the Quadro M3000M is approximately 3.4 times faster in raw compute throughput. The GTS 450 wins zero head-to-head comparisons, while the Quadro M3000M takes all one available benchmarks. This gap is not marginal; it reflects a fundamental shift in compute capability, memory bandwidth, and shader throughput between the two products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The Quadro M3000M posts a score of 16,646, while the GeForce GTS 450 manages 4,893. The delta of -70.6% means the older card trails by more than two-thirds of the newer card’s performance. In practical terms, this translates to the Quadro M3000M delivering over three times the compute performance of the GTS 450 in OpenCL workloads. This is a defining result: no other benchmark data exists to contextualize the gap further, but the single score is sufficient to establish a clear hierarchy.

The GTS 450’s percentile rank among all GPUs is 28, while the Quadro M3000M sits at 27. Despite the massive score difference in their direct comparison, both cards occupy a similar low-to-mid percentile tier in the overall database. However, this percentile similarity is misleading because the database includes a wide range of GPUs, and the GTS 450’s 28th percentile is driven by its age and limited feature set. The Quadro M3000M’s 27th percentile is based on its average benchmark score of 4,621 across multiple tests, including Vulkan, DirectX, and compute workloads. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M, which scores 4,628 with a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, which scores 4,657 with a delta of -0.8%. The GTS 450’s nearest rivals include the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4,901 with a delta of -0.2%, and the AMD FirePro W5130M, which scores 4,904 with a delta of -0.2%. These rival comparisons show that both cards hover near similar absolute scores when averaged across their respective benchmark suites, but the head-to-head OpenCL result reveals the Quadro M3000M’s superiority in that specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTS 450 has a higher average benchmark score of 4,893, based solely on its Geekbench OpenCL result. The Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, which is an average of nine different benchmark results, including OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX 9/10/11/12, and compute tests. Despite this lower average, the Quadro M3000M wins the head-to-head OpenCL test by a large margin.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s, compared to the GTS 450’s 57.73 GB/s. This is driven by a wider 256-bit memory bus and a larger 4 GB frame buffer, versus the GTS 450’s 128-bit bus and 1024 MB capacity. Both use GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro’s effective memory clock of 5 Gbps exceeds the GTS 450’s 3.6 Gbps.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the Quadro M3000M is compliant with the full DirectX 12 feature set, whereas the GTS 450 is limited to the earlier 11_0 feature level. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro M3000M also adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the GTS 450 lacks entirely.

Q: What is the difference in pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro M3000M provides a pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s. The GTS 450 offers 6.264 GPixel/s and 25.06 GTexel/s, respectively. The Quadro M3000M is roughly 4.7 times faster in pixel throughput and 2.4 times faster in texture throughput.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The GeForce GTS 450 was released on September 12, 2010, and the Quadro M3000M was released on August 17, 2015. Both have been discontinued, with the GTS 450 having a launch MSRP of 129 USD, while the Quadro M3000M has no listed launch MSRP.

Q: How do their thermal design power (TDP) ratings compare?

A: The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro M3000M has a lower TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors. This makes the Quadro M3000M more power-efficient despite its higher performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 16,646 Geekbench OpenCL score versus the GTS 450’s 4,893. This advantage is supported by its superior specifications: 1,024 shading units versus 192, 64 texture mapping units versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16. The Quadro also offers a 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads like rendering and scientific compute. Its pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s and texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s further cement its lead in graphics throughput. For any task that stresses the GPU, OpenCL compute, modern DirectX 12 applications, or high-resolution texturing, the Quadro M3000M is the clear choice.

The GTS 450, while significantly slower, retains a niche for legacy applications. Its 28th percentile ranking and average score of 4,893 are not impressive by modern standards, but it supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, which covers many older titles and productivity software. Its smaller 1024 MB frame buffer and 128-bit bus are adequate for low-resolution or older workloads. However, the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is dwarfed by the Quadro M3000M’s 1.892 TFLOPS. In any scenario where the GTS 450 is functional, the Quadro M3000M would perform the same task faster and with more headroom. The only area where the GTS 450 might be preferable is in its fixed desktop form factor, a dual-slot 210 mm card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI outputs, versus the Quadro’s MXM module form factor, which is portable-device dependent and offers no fixed display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The GTS 450 uses a 40 nm process node from TSMC, while the Quadro M3000M uses a 28 nm node, also from TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 1,170 million for the GTS 450 versus 5,200 million for the Quadro M3000M. Die size also grows from 238 mm² to 398 mm², and transistor density increases from 4.9M per mm² to 13.1M per mm². Memory configuration differs substantially: the GTS 450 has 1024 MB, a 128-bit bus, and 57.73 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB, a 256-bit bus, and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the GTS 450 and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro M3000M.

Compute units scale up dramatically: shading units jump from 192 to 1,024, TMUs from 32 to 64, and ROPs from 16 to 32. Pixel rate improves from 6.264 GPixel/s to 29.57 GPixel/s, texture rate from 25.06 GTexel/s to 59.14 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance from 601.3 GFLOPS to 1.892 TFLOPS. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W with a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W, an MXM module form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTS 450, versus portable-device-dependent outputs for the Quadro M3000M.

Architecture Differences

The GTS 450 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. Fermi was designed for early DirectX 11 and general-purpose GPU computing, but its compute capabilities are primitive compared to later designs. The Quadro M3000M is built on Maxwell 2.0, using the GM204 chip. Maxwell 2.0 introduced significant improvements in power efficiency and compute performance per clock, which explains the Quadro M3000M’s superior scores despite a lower TDP. The GTS 450 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation, while the Quadro M3000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, indicating their different market segments, consumer gaming versus professional mobile workstations.

The process node shrinks from 40 nm to 28 nm, allowing the Quadro M3000M to pack 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, versus 1,170 million in 238 mm² for the GTS 450. Transistor density nearly triples from 4.9M to 13.1M per mm². The GTS 450’s FP32 performance of 601.3 GFLOPS is a fraction of the Quadro M3000M’s 1.892 TFLOPS, reflecting the latter’s larger shader count and higher clocks (823 MHz base, 924 MHz boost, versus no listed base or boost for the GTS 450). The Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTS 450’s predecessor is the GeForce 200 series and its successor is the GeForce 500 series, while the Quadro M3000M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M, showing a generational gap of at least two architectures.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M is the superior GPU by a wide margin. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646 is over three times the GTS 450’s 4,893, and its specification sheet dominates in every performance-relevant category, memory bandwidth, shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, and FP32 compute. For any workload that leverages the GPU, from OpenCL compute to modern DirectX 12 applications, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice. Its lower TDP of 75 W versus 106 W also makes it more suitable for mobile or power-constrained environments, despite its MXM form factor requiring a compatible portable device.

The GTS 450 is not without a use case, but it is narrow. Its 28th percentile ranking and 4,893 average score place it in the lower tier of the database, and its 2010 release date makes it a legacy product. It could serve as a functional option for retro gaming or basic desktop acceleration in a desktop system with a PCIe 2.0 slot, dual-slot clearance, and a 300 W power supply. Its 2x DVI and mini-HDMI outputs are fixed and reliable. However, the Quadro M3000M’s 27th percentile ranking, despite a lower average score, is based on a broader benchmark suite, and its head-to-head win is decisive. A user needing maximum performance should pick the Quadro M3000M; a user constrained to a legacy desktop platform with minimal power and no requirement for modern compute might consider the GTS 450, but the data suggests that even then, the Quadro M3000M would outperform it if adapted for desktop use. The verdict is clear: the Quadro M3000M wins on every measurable front.