Component comparison
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 4090
GeForce MX450 vs GeForce RTX 4090 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX450
- + Die size (mm²) (+409 mm²)
B
GeForce RTX 4090
- + Release year (+3)
- + VRAM (GB) (+14 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+1000 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+954 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+320 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+95 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-8 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+71,600M)
- + CUDA cores (+15488)
- + TMUs (+448)
- + ROPs (+144)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+79.35 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+393.10 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+1201.80 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+14.3)
- + PassMark (overall) (+23333)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+19351)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+41466)
- + Normalized score (+30.3)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX450
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 4090
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2023 (+3) |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 16 GB (+14 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1250 MHz | 2250 MHz (+1000 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 80 GB/s | 1034 GB/s (+954 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 384 bit (+320 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 120 W (+95 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 4 nm (-8 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 76,300M (+71,600M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² (+409 mm²) | 609 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1395 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1575 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 896 | 16,384 (+15488) |
| TMUs | 64 | 512 (+448) |
| ROPs | 32 | 176 (+144) |
| RT cores | — | 128 |
| Tensor cores | — | 512 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS (+79.35 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s | 443.50 GPixel/s (+393.10 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s | 1290.00 GTexel/s (+1201.80 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 27.6 | 41.9 (+14.3) |
| PassMark (overall) | 3,714 | 27,047 (+23333) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 1,900 | 21,251 (+19351) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 4,725 | 46,191 (+41466) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 28,541 | — |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 27,321 | — |
| Normalized score | 44.7 | 75.0 (+30.3) |
Only in component B
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX450 | GeForce RTX 4090 | 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 | 147 FPS | 359.4% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 88 FPS | 199 FPS | 126.1% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 34 FPS | 173 FPS | 408.8% (B) |
| Fortnite | 61 FPS | 300 FPS | 391.8% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 FPS | 250 FPS | 614.3% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34 FPS | 281 FPS | 726.5% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 10 FPS | 156 FPS | 1460% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16 FPS | 218 FPS | 1262.5% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 33 FPS | 394 FPS | 1093.9% (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 4090 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).