Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1050
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Release year (+3)
- + Lithography (nm) (-2 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,400M)
- + CUDA cores (+128)
- + TMUs (+16)
- + ROPs (+8)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.01 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+3.84 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+30.00 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+16.6)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+11112)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+11555)
- + Normalized score (+13.4)
B
GeForce GTX 1050
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+5758 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+32 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+68 mm²)
- + PassMark (overall) (+1334)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+1343)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1050
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+3) | 2017 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 7008 MHz (+5758 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 112 GB/s (+32 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 128 bit (+64 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 75 W (+50 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm (-2 nm) | 14 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M (+1,400M) | 3,300M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 132 mm² (+68 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 896 (+128) | 768 |
| TMUs | 64 (+16) | 48 |
| ROPs | 32 (+8) | 24 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS (+1.01 TFLOPS) | 2.21 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s (+3.84 GPixel/s) | 46.56 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s (+30.00 GTexel/s) | 58.20 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+16.6) | 11.0 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 5,048 (+1334) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 6,068 (+1343) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 (+11112) | 17,429 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 (+11555) | 15,766 |
| Normalized score | 44.7 (+13.4) | 31.3 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce GTX 1050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 51 FPS | 4.1% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 65 FPS | +35.4% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 24 FPS | +33.3% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 126 FPS | 43.2% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 39 FPS | 14.7% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 132 FPS | 116.4% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 55 FPS | 57.1% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 35 FPS | 2.9% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 19 FPS | 90% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 24 FPS | 50% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 39 FPS | 18.2% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 100 FPS | 17.6% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce MX450 wins 13 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).