NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX130 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. That is a 24.7% advantage for the MX130. The MX130 also holds a win in every recorded head-to-head test, with 1 win and 0 losses.

The MX130's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5508, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTS 450 averages 4893 and sits at the 28th percentile. The gap in percentile ranking is modest, but the raw score delta is meaningful: roughly a quarter faster in OpenCL compute.

Look at the nearest rivals to understand the MX130's positioning. It sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). The AMD FirePro M4000 is 0.5% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is 0.7% behind. In other words, the MX130 lands in a crowded pack of mobile and workstation parts, and its 5508 average is essentially tied with several of them.

The GTS 450's nearest rivals are a different story. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901), 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929). This places the GTS 450 in a much lower performance tier, despite the fact that one of its nearest rivals is a modern RTX card with a similar average score in this particular database. That is a quirk of the averaging, not a statement about real-world gaming performance.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: in OpenCL, the MX130 wins by 24.7%. No other shared benchmark exists in the database, so the comparison rests on that one test plus the aggregate scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different processes. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, based on Maxwell architecture, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip, based on Fermi architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 40 nm process. The process difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm affects power efficiency and transistor density directly.

Transistor counts are close in absolute terms. The MX130 has 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per mm². The GTS 450 has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger die of 238 mm², resulting in a density of just 4.9 million transistors per mm². The MX130 packs nearly the same number of transistors into roughly a third of the silicon area. That density advantage explains much of the efficiency gap.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s. The GTS 450 has the wider bus and higher bandwidth, but the MX130 has twice the capacity. Memory clocks also differ: the MX130 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GTS 450 runs at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are arranged differently. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MX130 has twice the shader count but fewer TMUs and half the ROPs. This explains why the MX130 wins compute-heavy workloads but the GTS 450 retains advantages in fill-rate-oriented tasks.

The MX130 has a much higher pixel rate at 9.512 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s for the GTS 450. The texture rates are closer: 28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130 versus 25.06 GTexel/s for the GTS 450. FP32 compute favors the MX130 heavily: 913.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS. Neither card has FP16 data recorded, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical design are where the two diverge most sharply. The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics package), and requires no power connectors. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, is a dual-slot card, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 300 W. The MX130 is 210 mm long and 111 mm tall? No, that is the GTS 450. The MX130 has no recorded dimensions, as it is a portable-device-dependent part. The GTS 450 measures 210 mm (8.3 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Bus interfaces also differ. The MX130 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The MX130's display outputs are listed as portable-device-dependent, while the GTS 450 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

API support is similar on paper: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-oriented workloads: the MX130 is faster. Its OpenCL score is 24.7% higher, its FP32 output is 913.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS, and it does this while consuming only 30 W against the GTS 450's 106 W. For anyone building a low-power, portable system, the MX130 is the only sensible pick from these two.

The GTS 450 is not without its own strengths. It has double the memory bus width (128 bit versus 64 bit), higher bandwidth (57.73 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s), double the ROPs (16 versus 8), and more TMUs (32 versus 24). It also has a wider bus interface at PCIe 2.0 x16 versus the MX130's PCIe 3.0 x4. For legacy applications that depend on fill rate or memory bandwidth rather than raw shader throughput, the GTS 450 may hold its own despite the lower overall compute score.

But the practical reality is that the MX130 is a much newer part. The GTS 450 was released in September 2010; the MX130 came in November 2017. Both are end-of-life, but the MX130 belongs to a generation that supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support recorded. The MX130 also offers 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, which matters for any modern workload that exceeds a gigabyte of framebuffer.

The verdict comes down to use case. If the task is compute, modern API compatibility, power efficiency, or running in a thin laptop form factor, the MX130 wins outright. If the task is purely about memory bandwidth and ROP throughput on an older desktop platform, the GTS 450 offers structural advantages, but its overall benchmark score is 24.7% lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 6102 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTS 450 scores 4893. The MX130 is 24.7% faster.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The MX130 has 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTS 450 has 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128 bit bus. The MX130 has 40.10 GB/s on a 64 bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX130 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MX130 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card is older?

A: The GTS 450 was released in September 2010, while the MX130 was released in November 2017. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The MX130 wins in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 913.2 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450, a 51.9% advantage. Its pixel rate is also higher: 9.512 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s. Texture rate is close, with the MX130 at 28.54 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s. The MX130 also wins on power efficiency, since it delivers more performance at less than a third of the TDP.

The GTS 450 wins in memory bandwidth and fill-rate-related resources. It offers 57.73 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s, double the ROP count (16 versus 8), and more TMUs (32 versus 24). It also has a wider bus interface at PCIe 2.0 x16, which may matter for older motherboards. Its 128 bit memory bus is twice the width of the MX130's 64 bit bus.

For modern workloads that leverage shader compute, the MX130 is the better choice. For legacy applications that are bandwidth-limited or rely on ROP throughput, the GTS 450's wider memory subsystem gives it a structural edge, but the overall benchmark data still favors the MX130.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX130 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,170 million |

| Die size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.2M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Shading units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| FP32 performance | 913.2 GFLOPS | 601.3 GFLOPS |

| Pixel rate | 9.512 GPixel/s | 6.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 28.54 GTexel/s | 25.06 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 30 W | 106 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 300 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | Not recorded |

| Length | Not recorded | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release date | 2017-11-16 | 2010-09-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 129 USD |

The table captures every recorded difference between the two parts. The MX130 is smaller, denser, more power-efficient, and faster in compute. The GTS 450 is a larger, older, power-hungry desktop card with a wider memory bus and more ROPs. The GTS 450's launch MSRP was 129 USD. The MX130 has no recorded launch MSRP.