GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras, built on very different architectures. The sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the older Fermi-based GTS 450 scoring 4,893, which is 15.2% higher than the Pascal-based Quadro P400’s 4,249. However, the P400 counters with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,119, a test the GTS 450 does not have data for. The GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the P400 is just behind at the 27th percentile, indicating they occupy nearly the same performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct numerical comparison comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTS 450 delivers a 15.2% win over the P400. That score difference, 4,893 versus 4,249, places the GTS 450 in a slightly higher performance bracket. To put that in context, the GTS 450’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (score 4,901, only 0.2% faster) and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (score 4,929, 0.7% faster). The P400’s closest competitors are the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (score 4,727, 0.9% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (score 4,657, 0.6% slower). This means the GTS 450’s OpenCL win is meaningful but not transformative; both cards trade blows with low-end mobile and entry-level desktop parts from various generations.

In OpenCL, the GTS 450’s advantage can be traced to its memory subsystem. It has a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the P400’s 64-bit bus and 32.06 GB/s. That 25.67 GB/s gap likely helps in memory-heavy compute workloads, even though the P400 has more shading units (256 versus 192). The P400 does not win any of the listed head-to-head benchmarks, but its Vulkan score of 5,119 suggests it would outperform the GTS 450 in that API if a comparison existed, the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed, while the P400 supports Vulkan 1.4.

The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness: 28th versus 27th percentile. The GTS 450’s OpenCL win of 15.2% is the largest margin between these two cards in any measured test, but the P400’s Vulkan result, if considered as a separate data point, shows it can achieve higher raw scores in a modern API. For older OpenCL-based applications, the GTS 450 is the clear pick; for Vulkan-capable software, the P400 has the edge. Neither card is a powerhouse, but they serve different software ecosystems.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTS 450 averages 4,893 across its single benchmark, while the P400 averages 4,684 across its two benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan). The GTS 450’s average is 209 points higher, a 4.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 support any API that the GTS 450 lacks?

A: Yes. The P400 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed and only DirectX 12 (11_0). The P400 also has a listed FP16 performance of 10.02 GFLOPS, whereas the GTS 450 has no FP16 data.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The P400 has double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, but the GTS 450 has nearly double the bandwidth: 57.73 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s. The GTS 450’s 128-bit bus is twice as wide as the P400’s 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card draws less power and requires a smaller power supply?

A: The P400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, needs a 1x 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The P400 is also single-slot versus the GTS 450’s dual-slot design.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The GTS 450 is 210 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the P400 is 150 mm long and 69 mm tall. The P400 is significantly shorter and lower-profile, making it easier to fit in compact chassis.

Q: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, how does each card compare to its nearest rival?

A: The GTS 450 (4,893) is 0.2% slower than the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901) and 0.5% faster than the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4,867). The P400 (4,249) is 0.6% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657) and 1.2% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4,628).

The Verdict

The data points to the GTS 450 as the better choice for OpenCL-based workloads. Its 15.2% lead in the only direct head-to-head test is substantial, and its higher average benchmark score (4,893 versus 4,684) confirms that advantage. The GTS 450 also benefits from superior memory bandwidth (57.73 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s), which is critical for compute tasks that move large data sets. However, the P400 is not without merit. Its Vulkan support (1.4) and higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0) make it the more future-proof option for modern APIs, and its 2 GB memory capacity is double the GTS 450’s 1 GB, which helps with larger textures or datasets.

For a builder prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance in legacy applications, the GTS 450 wins outright. For someone running Vulkan-based software or needing a low-power, single-slot card with modern API support, the P400 is the logical pick despite its lower OpenCL score. The P400’s 30 W TDP and no power connector requirement also make it far easier to install in power-constrained systems, whereas the GTS 450’s 106 W TDP and 6-pin connector demand a more robust PSU. Neither card is suitable for high-end gaming or rendering, but they occupy distinct niches: the GTS 450 for bandwidth-hungry OpenCL, the P400 for API compatibility and efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The GTS 450 uses a 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the P400 uses a 14 nm process with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The P400 has a much higher transistor density at 25.0M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm². Memory configurations diverge: the GTS 450 has 1 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth and 902 MHz memory clock (3.6 Gbps effective), while the P400 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth and 1002 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds also differ: the GTS 450 has no listed base or boost clock, while the P400 has a 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost. Pixel and texture rates favor different cards: the GTS 450 has 6.264 GPixel/s and 25.06 GTexel/s, while the P400 has 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450 versus 641.0 GFLOPS for the P400, but the P400 adds FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS. Power and physical specs differ sharply: the GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin connector, 300 W suggested PSU, and measures 210 mm x 111 mm; the P400 has a 30 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, 200 W suggested PSU, and measures 150 mm x 69 mm. Bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTS 450 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P400. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a on the GTS 450 versus 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the P400. The GTS 450 has a launch MSRP of 129 USD; the P400 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The GTS 450 is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture (chip GF106), released in the GeForce 400 generation, while the P400 uses Pascal (chip GP107) from the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. The process node difference is stark: 40 nm at TSMC for the GTS 450 versus 14 nm at Samsung for the P400. That node shrink explains the transistor density gap, 25.0M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm², and allows the P400 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a smaller 132 mm² die, compared to the GTS 450’s 1,170 million transistors on 238 mm². The P400 is also the newer design, with a release date in 2017 versus 2010 for the GTS 450. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTS 450 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The P400 lists FP16 performance at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the GTS 450 lacks entirely. The P400’s Pascal architecture also includes a boost clock (1252 MHz) and base clock (1228 MHz), whereas the GTS 450 has no clock speed listings. The P400 uses a PCIe 3.0 interface versus the GTS 450’s PCIe 2.0, and its display outputs are modern mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections, compared to the GTS 450’s older DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Where Each One Wins

The GTS 450 wins in OpenCL compute performance, memory bandwidth, and texture fill rate. Its 57.73 GB/s bandwidth is 80% higher than the P400’s 32.06 GB/s, and its 25.06 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds the P400’s 20.03 GTexel/s. It also has more TMUs (32 versus 16) and a higher average benchmark score. In the single head-to-head test, it wins by 15.2%, and its percentile ranking is one point higher (28th versus 27th). The GTS 450 is the choice for legacy OpenCL applications where raw bandwidth and texture throughput matter more than API modernity.

The P400 wins in power efficiency, physical footprint, and software compatibility. Its 30 W TDP is less than a third of the GTS 450’s 106 W, it requires no power connectors, and it fits in a single slot at 150 mm length versus 210 mm. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), doubling the GTS 450’s feature level, and it offers FP16 compute. The P400’s 2 GB memory capacity is double the GTS 450’s, and its pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s) is over three times higher. For Vulkan-based workloads, the P400’s 5,119 Geekbench Vulkan score, though not directly comparable to the GTS 450’s OpenCL result, shows it can handle modern graphics APIs effectively. The P400 also has a higher FP32 peak (641.0 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS), making it marginally stronger in pure shader math when memory bandwidth is not the bottleneck.