NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 are both Fermi-generation parts from 2010, but they were built for entirely different missions. The Quadro 4000 is a professional workstation card aimed at precision and stability, while the GTS 450 is a mainstream consumer GPU for gaming. Despite their divergent purposes, the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close performance contest, with the professional card eking out a narrow victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark recorded for both cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this metric, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4,893 points. This gives the Quadro 4000 a victory by a margin of 1.8 percent. It is a thin lead, but it is a lead nonetheless, and it flips the expected hierarchy on its head given the price disparity between these two products.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro 4000 sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTS 450 sits just one rung lower in the 28th percentile. This near-identical placement reinforces the head-to-head delta: these are effectively equivalent performers in raw compute workloads, with the Quadro holding only a marginal edge. The data shows a 0.2 percent difference between the Quadro 4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4,970 points. It also sits 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which scores 4,998 points. For the GTS 450, its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4,901 points, placing the GTS 450 0.2 percent behind it. The GTS 450 also trails the AMD FirePro W5130M by 0.2 percent, which scores 4,904 points.

The 1.8 percent delta between the two cards in question is smaller than the variance seen against some of their nearest rivals. For instance, the Quadro 4000 is 1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M360, while the GTS 450 is 0.7 percent behind the AMD Radeon R7 M265. This context suggests that the performance gap between the Quadro 4000 and GTS 450 is statistically minor, and in many real-world OpenCL tasks, the results would likely be indistinguishable. The Quadro 4000 wins the head-to-head with 1 win, while the GTS 450 records 0 wins.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Fermi architecture, which means they share core design philosophies, but they use different physical chips. The Quadro 4000 is based on the GF100 chip, while the GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip. This is the most significant architectural divergence, as GF100 is the larger, more complex die. The Quadro’s GF100 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, whereas the GTS 450’s GF106 contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. This makes the Quadro’s chip roughly 2.6 times larger in transistor count and over twice the physical size.

The transistor density also differs slightly. The Quadro 4000 achieves a density of 5.9M transistors per square millimeter, while the GTS 450 manages 4.9M per square millimeter. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process node, so the density difference comes down to the architectural layout of the respective chips rather than manufacturing technology.

The shading unit count is a clear differentiator. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192. This gives the professional card a 33 percent advantage in raw shader hardware. However, the texture mapping units (TMUs) are identical at 32 each. The ROP count tells a different story: the Quadro 4000 has 32 ROPs, double the 16 ROPs found on the GTS 450. This suggests the Quadro is better equipped for pixel-heavy workloads, despite its lower overall fill rate in practice.

The memory subsystem is another major architectural split. The Quadro 4000 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. This doubling of the memory bus width gives the Quadro a substantial bandwidth advantage. The Quadro’s memory is rated at 702 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective speed, yielding 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450’s memory runs at 902 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective speed, but the narrower bus limits its bandwidth to 57.73 GB/s. The Quadro therefore offers 55.6 percent more memory bandwidth, a critical factor for large datasets in professional applications.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither lists Vulkan support. They also share the same PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface and are both end-of-life products. The physical design differs: the Quadro 4000 is single-slot with a length of 241 mm, while the GTS 450 is dual-slot with a length of 210 mm. Both require a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.8 percent higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450’s score of 4,893 points.

Q: Are these cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on the Fermi architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process node, but they use different chips: the Quadro 4000 uses GF100, and the GTS 450 uses GF106.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTS 450 has 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192, giving the Quadro a 33 percent advantage in this area.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro 4000 achieves a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTS 450’s 6.264 GPixel/s.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither has Vulkan support listed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification except for architecture, process node, foundry, TMUs, power connector, suggested PSU, bus interface, API support, and production status. The key differences are as follows:

• Chip: GF100 (Quadro 4000) versus GF106 (GTS 450)
• Transistors: 3,100 million versus 1,170 million
• Die Size: 529 mm² versus 238 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.86 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s
• Shading Units: 256 versus 192
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel Rate: 7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 15.20 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s
• FP32: 486.4 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS
• TDP: 142 W versus 106 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus Dual-slot
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort versus 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a
• Dimensions: 241 mm length versus 210 mm length
• Release Date: 2010-11-01 versus 2010-09-12
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Tesla versus GeForce 200
• Successor: Quadro Kepler versus GeForce 500
• Launch MSRP: 1,199 USD versus 129 USD

The Verdict

The data presents a fascinating paradox. The Quadro 4000, with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, delivers only a 1.8 percent performance advantage over the GTS 450, which launched at 129 USD. In terms of raw OpenCL compute, these cards are nearly twins, with the Quadro scoring 4,979 and the GTS 450 scoring 4,893. Anyone choosing purely on benchmark scores would find the GTS 450 to be the more compelling option, as it delivers the vast majority of the Quadro’s performance.

However, the specification sheet tells a more nuanced story. The Quadro 4000 offers double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), double the ROPs (32 versus 16), and significantly more memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s). These features are critical for professional workloads like large texture sets, high-resolution displays, and complex compute tasks that exceed the GTS 450’s memory capacity. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.264 GPixel/s), which benefits certain rendering paths.

The GTS 450 fights back in other areas. It has a higher texture rate (25.06 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 performance (601.3 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS). It also consumes less power, with a 106 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 142 W, and it is shorter in length at 210 mm versus 241 mm. For a consumer gaming or general-purpose card, the GTS 450’s strengths in texture throughput and raw FP32 are arguably more relevant than the Quadro’s bandwidth and ROP advantages.

The verdict hinges on use case. The benchmark results indicate that for OpenCL compute, there is no meaningful winner; the 1.8 percent delta is within the noise of typical system variance. The Quadro 4000 is the pick for professionals who need the larger frame buffer, higher pixel throughput, and dual DisplayPort outputs for multi-monitor setups. The GTS 450 is the pick for anyone prioritizing lower power draw, higher texture fill, and a smaller physical footprint. The data does not support the Quadro’s massive price premium on performance grounds, but it does justify it on the basis of memory capacity, ROP count, and bandwidth. Those who need those specific attributes should choose the Quadro 4000; everyone else should look at the GTS 450.