Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce MX350
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce MX350 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+24 GB/s)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+5 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-2 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,400M)
- + Base clock (MHz) (+41 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+107 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+256)
- + TMUs (+32)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+2.03 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+26.91 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+41.22 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+1.4)
- + PassMark (overall) (+896)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+564)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+354)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+15429)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+13952)
- + Normalized score (+13.9)
B
GeForce MX350
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+502 MHz)
- + Die size (mm²) (+68 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce MX350
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 1752 MHz (+502 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s (+24 GB/s) | 56 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W (+5 W) | 20 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 (+41 MHz) | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz (+107 MHz) | 1468 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 896 (+256) | 640 |
| TMUs | 64 (+32) | 32 |
| ROPs | 32 (+16) | 16 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS (+2.03 TFLOPS) | 1.20 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s (+26.91 GPixel/s) | 23.49 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s (+41.22 GTexel/s) | 46.98 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+1.4) | 26.1 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 (+896) | 2,818 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 (+564) | 1,336 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 (+354) | 4,371 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 (+15429) | 13,112 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 (+13952) | 13,369 |
| Normalized score | 44.7 (+13.9) | 30.8 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce MX350 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 37 FPS | +32.4% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 66 FPS | +33.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 16 FPS | +100% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 83 FPS | +6% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 27 FPS | +25.9% (A) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 82 FPS | 34.4% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 37 FPS | 5.7% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 25 FPS | +36% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 12 FPS | 20% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 18 FPS | 12.5% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 27 FPS | +22.2% (A) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 129 FPS | 51.8% (B) |
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).