Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 2060
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 2060 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Release year (+1)
- + Die size (mm²) (+245 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+9.4)
B
GeForce RTX 2060
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+500 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+256 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+90 W)
- + Transistors (M) (+6,100M)
- + CUDA cores (+1024)
- + TMUs (+56)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+3.22 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+30.24 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+113.40 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+10380)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+4241)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+11606)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+42871)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+38537)
- + Normalized score (+21.7)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 2060
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 (+1) | 2019 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 6 GB (+4 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 1750 MHz (+500 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 336 GB/s (+256 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 192 bit (+128 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 115 W (+90 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 10,800M (+6,100M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+245 mm²) | 445 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 896 | 1,920 (+1024) |
| TMUs | 64 | 120 (+56) |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 (+16) |
| RT cores | — | 30 |
| Tensor cores | — | 240 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS | 6.45 TFLOPS (+3.22 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s | 80.64 GPixel/s (+30.24 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s | 201.60 GTexel/s (+113.40 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+9.4) | 18.1 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 14,094 (+10380) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | 6,141 (+4241) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 16,331 (+11606) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 | 71,412 (+42871) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 | 65,858 (+38537) |
| Normalized score | 44.7 | 66.4 (+21.7) |
Only in component B
DLSS
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce RTX 2060 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 104 FPS | 112.2% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 150 FPS | 70.5% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 60 FPS | 87.5% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 118 FPS | 34.1% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 96 FPS | 182.4% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 162 FPS | 165.6% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 108 FPS | 208.6% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 100 FPS | 194.1% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 56 FPS | 460% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 65 FPS | 306.3% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 111 FPS | 236.4% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 223 FPS | 162.4% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 2060 wins 18 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).