Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 3080 Ti — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Die size (mm²) (+428 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+13.4)
B
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
- + Release year (+1)
- + VRAM (GB) (+10 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+832 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+320 bit)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+23,600M)
- + CUDA cores (+9344)
- + TMUs (+256)
- + ROPs (+80)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+30.87 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+136.10 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+444.60 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+23046)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+42388)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+180540)
- + Normalized score (+21.6)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2021 (+1) |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 12 GB (+10 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6X |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | — |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 912 GB/s (+832 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 384 bit (+320 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | — |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 8 nm (-4 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 28,300M (+23,600M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+428 mm²) | 628 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 896 | 10,240 (+9344) |
| TMUs | 64 | 320 (+256) |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 (+80) |
| RT cores | — | 80 |
| Tensor cores | — | 320 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS | 34.10 TFLOPS (+30.87 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s | 186.50 GPixel/s (+136.10 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s | 532.80 GTexel/s (+444.60 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 (+13.4) | 14.2 |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 26,760 (+23046) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 47,113 (+42388) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 | 209,081 (+180540) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 | — |
| Normalized score | 44.7 | 66.3 (+21.6) |
Only in component B
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 49 FPS | 170 FPS | 246.9% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88 FPS | 300 FPS | 240.9% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32 FPS | 219 FPS | 584.4% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 234 FPS | 165.9% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 208 FPS | 511.8% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 300 FPS | 391.8% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 250 FPS | 614.3% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 200 FPS | 488.2% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 172 FPS | 1620% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 190 FPS | 1087.5% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 372 FPS | 1027.3% (B) |
| Valorant | 85 FPS | 350 FPS | 311.8% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 3080 Ti wins 16 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).