Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 2050
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 2050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Base clock (MHz) (+660 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+330 MHz)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+10.56 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+8.52 GTexel/s)
B
GeForce RTX 2050
- + Release year (+1)
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+500 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+32 GB/s)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+20 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+4,000M)
- + CUDA cores (+1152)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.50 TFLOPS)
- + Energy efficiency (+2.1)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+1321)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+4240)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+15738)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+15709)
- + Normalized score (+10.5)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 2050
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2021 (+1) |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 4 GB (+2 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 1750 MHz (+500 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 112 GB/s (+32 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 45 W (+20 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 8 nm (-4 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 8,700M (+4,000M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz (+660 MHz) | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz (+330 MHz) | 1245 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 896 | 2,048 (+1152) |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| RT cores | — | 32 |
| Tensor cores | — | 64 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS | 4.73 TFLOPS (+1.50 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s (+10.56 GPixel/s) | 39.84 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s (+8.52 GTexel/s) | 79.68 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 | 29.6 (+2.1) |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | — |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | 3,221 (+1321) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 8,965 (+4240) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 | 44,279 (+15738) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 | 43,030 (+15709) |
| Normalized score | 44.7 | 55.2 (+10.5) |
Only in component B
DLSS
ReBAR
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce RTX 2050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | 42.9% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | ≈ 74 FPS | +18.9% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 18 FPS | +77.8% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 71 FPS | +23.9% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 35 FPS | 2.9% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | ≈ 95 FPS | 55.7% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | 100% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 53 FPS | 55.9% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | ≈ 35 FPS | 250% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 17 FPS | 6.3% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | ≈ 58 FPS | 75.8% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | ≈ 130 FPS | 52.9% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings. Values for GeForce RTX 2050 are model predictions (≈); GeForce MX450 are direct measurements.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 2050 wins 15 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).