NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA Quadro M500M posts a score of 5986 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450’s 4893. That is a 22.3% advantage for the Quadro M500M, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer. The Quadro M500M also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan result in the database, which hints at a broader feature gap beyond raw compute.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro M500M averages 5604 across its recorded tests, while the GTS 450 averages 4893. The delta between these averages is roughly 14.5% in favor of the Quadro M500M, though the head-to-head OpenCL delta is larger because it compares the Quadro’s strongest result against the GTS 450’s only result. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile. Neither card is a top-tier performer, but the Quadro M500M consistently lands above its older counterpart in the distribution.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro M500M include the AMD FirePro M4000 (average score 5537, delta +1.2%), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (average score 5691, delta -1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average score 5508, delta +1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (average score 5501, delta +1.9%). These deltas show the Quadro M500M is essentially neck-and-neck with a cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs from several generations. The GTS 450’s nearest rivals are quite different: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (average score 4901, delta -0.2%), the AMD FirePro W5130M (average score 4904, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (average score 4867, delta +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (average score 4929, delta -0.7%). The GTS 450 is surrounded by a mix of modern entry-level parts and older mid-range chips, with deltas all within 1% either way, indicating its score sits right in a crowded performance band.

The head-to-head result is decisive in raw compute terms. The Quadro M500M’s OpenCL score is not just higher; it is higher by more than a fifth, which suggests a meaningful architectural advantage rather than a minor clock speed bump. The database records only one head-to-head test, so the complete picture depends on interpreting the underlying specifications and the different benchmark coverage for each card.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it also appears in a Vulkan test that the GTS 450 lacks entirely. That Vulkan score of 5222 indicates the Quadro M500M can handle modern API workloads, at least at a basic level, while the GTS 450 has no recorded Vulkan support. For compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, the Quadro M500M is clearly the stronger choice based on the 22.3% delta. Its higher FP32 throughput, 863.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450, supports this conclusion. The Quadro M500M also has a higher pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s, meaning it can fill more pixels per second in rasterization workloads.

The GTS 450, however, has advantages in specific areas that favor certain use cases. Its texture rate is 25.06 GTexel/s against the Quadro M500M’s 17.98 GTexel/s, a 39% advantage in texture filtering throughput. This suggests the GTS 450 could be relatively stronger in texture-bound scenes, though its lower overall compute score tempers any practical benefit. The GTS 450 also has double the ROPs (16 versus 8) and double the TMUs (32 versus 16), which changes the balance of work between the front-end and back-end of the graphics pipeline. In memory bandwidth, the GTS 450 wins decisively: 57.73 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 4x gap. The GTS 450 uses a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5, while the Quadro M500M uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3. For bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the GTS 450 is far better equipped.

So the split is clear: the Quadro M500M wins in raw compute, pixel throughput, and API support, while the GTS 450 wins in texture rate, memory bandwidth, and memory bus width. A user running OpenCL compute kernels or Vulkan-based applications would prefer the Quadro M500M. A user dealing with large textures or high-resolution frame buffers that depend on memory bandwidth might find the GTS 450 more responsive, though its lower compute score limits its overall capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras within NVIDIA’s lineup. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip on the Fermi architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 40 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm allows the Maxwell chip to pack more transistors per area. The Quadro M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The GTS 450 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The die size difference is stark: 77 mm² versus 238 mm², meaning the Fermi chip is over three times larger physically while containing only slightly more transistors.

The shader configuration also differs. The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Maxwell architecture relies on a wider number of smaller cores, while Fermi uses fewer, larger cores with more attached texture and raster hardware. The clock speeds tell a similar story: the Quadro M500M runs at a base of 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the GTS 450 has no listed base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 902 MHz. The Quadro M500M’s boost capability means its effective performance can rise under load, while the GTS 450’s fixed clocks limit its adaptability.

Memory technology marks another major split. The Quadro M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in 57.73 GB/s. The GTS 450 has a smaller capacity but four times the bandwidth, which is typical of desktop gaming parts versus low-power mobile workstation parts. The Quadro M500M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTS 450’s memory runs at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), so the per-pin data rate is double on the GTS 450.

Power consumption reflects the design goals. The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, no power connectors, and an MXM Module slot width. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, and occupies a dual-slot design. The Quadro M500M is built for mobile workstations where power efficiency is critical, while the GTS 450 is a desktop card from 2010 with much higher power draw. The bus interfaces differ too: the Quadro M500M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also diverge: the Quadro M500M’s are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the GTS 450 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

In API support, both cards list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro M500M adds Vulkan 1.4 while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan entry. The Quadro M500M also belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, with a predecessor of Quadro Kepler-M and a successor of Quadro Pascal-M. The GTS 450 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation, with a predecessor of GeForce 200 and a successor of GeForce 500. The release dates differ by nearly six years: the Quadro M500M launched on April 26, 2016, while the GTS 450 launched on September 12, 2010.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. The Quadro M500M leads by 22.3% in this head-to-head test.

Q: Does the GTS 450 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The GTS 450 has a memory bandwidth of 57.73 GB/s from its 128-bit GDDR5 bus, while the Quadro M500M has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The GTS 450’s bandwidth is roughly four times higher.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M500M supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222. The GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed and no Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The Quadro M500M has a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter on a 77 mm² die, while the GTS 450 has 4.9 million per square millimeter on a 238 mm² die. The Maxwell chip is far denser despite having fewer total transistors (1,020 million versus 1,170 million).

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W. The Quadro M500M also has no power connectors, whereas the GTS 450 requires a 1x 6-pin connector and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192. However, the GTS 450 has more TMUs (32 versus 16) and more ROPs (16 versus 8).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The Quadro M500M uses a GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process, while the GTS 450 uses a GF106 chip on the Fermi architecture with a 40 nm process. The Quadro M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the GTS 450 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.2M per square millimeter for the Quadro M500M versus 4.9M for the GTS 450.

Clock speeds: the Quadro M500M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the GTS 450 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the Quadro M500M and 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the GTS 450. Memory configuration: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the Quadro M500M versus 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the GTS 450. Bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s.

Compute resources: 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Quadro M500M, versus 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the GTS 450. Pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s. FP32 is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical: TDP is 30 W versus 106 W. Slot width is MXM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are None versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is absent for the Quadro M500M, while the GTS 450 suggests 300 W. Bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent” for the Quadro M500M versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTS 450. Dimensions: the GTS 450 is 210 mm long and 111 mm high, while the Quadro M500M has no recorded dimensions.

API support: both have DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro M500M has Vulkan 1.4. Release dates: April 26, 2016 for the Quadro M500M, September 12, 2010 for the GTS 450. The GTS 450 has a launch MSRP of 129 USD, while the Quadro M500M has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and usage context. For raw compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins outright: its OpenCL score is 22.3% higher, its FP32 throughput is 43% higher, and it supports Vulkan while the GTS 450 does not. Its higher pixel rate and boost clock also favor modern rendering tasks. The Quadro M500M’s 30 W TDP makes it suitable for portable systems where power efficiency is paramount, and its Maxwell architecture delivers more performance per transistor and per watt.

The GTS 450 retains advantages in memory bandwidth, texture rate, and memory bus width. Its 57.73 GB/s bandwidth is four times that of the Quadro M500M, and its 25.06 GTexel/s texture rate is 39% higher. For applications that are heavily bandwidth-bound or texture-bound, the GTS 450 could outperform the Quadro M500M despite its lower compute score. The GTS 450 also has double the ROPs, which can help in certain rasterization scenarios.

Given the benchmark results, the Quadro M500M is the better choice for general compute, modern API support, and power-constrained environments. The GTS 450 might be preferred only in narrow cases where memory bandwidth or texture throughput dominates the workload, and where the lack of Vulkan support is not a concern. The release dates reinforce this: the Quadro M500M is a 2016 part, while the GTS 450 is from 2010, so the architectural advancements in Maxwell deliver higher efficiency and better overall scores. The percentile rankings, 32nd versus 28th, reflect the Quadro M500M’s slight but consistent edge across the database. Users seeking the higher-performing GPU should select the Quadro M500M, while those with specific bandwidth-sensitive needs might consider the GTS 450, but the database’s single head-to-head result leaves no ambiguity about the overall winner.