Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Release year (+5)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+350 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+66 GB/s)
- + Lithography (nm) (-16 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+2,830M)
- + Base clock (MHz) (+375 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+477 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+512)
- + TMUs (+40)
- + ROPs (+24)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+2.32 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+32.83 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+53.06 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+21.2)
- + PassMark (overall) (+2581)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+3103)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+22516)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+22772)
- + Normalized score (+38.5)
B
GeForce 940M
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+52 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+5) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz (+350 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s (+66 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 75 W (+50 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm (-16 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M (+2,830M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 148 mm² (+52 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz (+375 MHz) | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz (+477 MHz) | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 896 (+512) | 384 |
| TMUs | 64 (+40) | 24 |
| ROPs | 32 (+24) | 8 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS (+2.32 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s (+32.83 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s (+53.06 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+21.2) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 (+2581) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 (+3103) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 (+22516) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 (+22772) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 44.7 (+38.5) | 6.2 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 17 FPS | +188.2% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 9 FPS | +877.8% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 5 FPS | +540% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 49 FPS | +79.6% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 11 FPS | +209.1% (A) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 36 FPS | +69.4% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 14 FPS | +150% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 6 FPS | +466.7% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 2 FPS | +400% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 3 FPS | +433.3% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 10 FPS | +230% (A) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 40 FPS | +112.5% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce MX450 wins 19 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).