Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Release year (+4)
- + Lithography (nm) (-2 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,400M)
- + CUDA cores (+128)
- + TMUs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.05 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+5.86 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+21.38 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+11.8)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+7887)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+7531)
- + Normalized score (+4.0)
B
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+32 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+68 mm²)
- + PassMark (overall) (+2649)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+361)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+2760)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+4) | 2016 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 4 GB (+2 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 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 | 32 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS (+1.05 TFLOPS) | 2.18 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s (+5.86 GPixel/s) | 44.54 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s (+21.38 GTexel/s) | 66.82 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+11.8) | 15.8 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 6,363 (+2649) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | 2,261 (+361) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 7,485 (+2760) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 (+7887) | 20,654 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 (+7531) | 19,790 |
| Normalized score | 44.7 (+4.0) | 40.8 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 57 FPS | 16.3% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 70 FPS | +25.7% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 27 FPS | +18.5% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 98 FPS | 11.4% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 48 FPS | 41.2% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 75 FPS | 23% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 67 FPS | 91.4% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 40 FPS | 17.6% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 31 FPS | 210% (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 | 46 FPS | 39.4% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 110 FPS | 29.4% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce MX450 wins 12 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).