Component comparison
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce MX450
GeForce RTX 3050 vs GeForce MX450 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 3050
- + Release year (+1)
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+112 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+4,000M)
- + CUDA cores (+1152)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+2.27 TFLOPS)
- + PassMark (overall) (+8164)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+2597)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+7224)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+34924)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+34843)
- + Normalized score (+18.4)
B
GeForce MX450
- + Base clock (MHz) (+330 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+232 MHz)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+7.42 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+2.25 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+10.6)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 3050
|
Component B
GeForce MX450
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+1) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB (+2 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz (+250 MHz) | 1250 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 192 GB/s (+112 GB/s) | 80 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 75 W (+50 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm (-4 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 8,700M (+4,000M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | 1395 MHz (+330 MHz) |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1343 MHz | 1575 MHz (+232 MHz) |
| CUDA cores | 2,048 (+1152) | 896 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| RT cores | 16 | — |
| Tensor cores | 64 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 5.50 TFLOPS (+2.27 TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 42.98 GPixel/s | 50.40 GPixel/s (+7.42 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 85.95 GTexel/s | 88.20 GTexel/s (+2.25 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 17.0 | 27.6 (+10.6) |
| PassMark (overall) | 11,878 (+8164) | 3,714 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 4,497 (+2597) | 1,900 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 11,949 (+7224) | 4,725 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 63,465 (+34924) | 28,541 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 62,164 (+34843) | 27,321 |
| Normalized score | 63.1 (+18.4) | 44.7 |
Only in component A
ReBAR
Only in component B
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 3050 | GeForce MX450 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 93 FPS | 49 FPS | +89.8% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 FPS | 88 FPS | +93.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 FPS | 32 FPS | +106.3% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 118 FPS | 88 FPS | +34.1% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 FPS | 34 FPS | +100% (A) |
| Fortnite | 110 FPS | 61 FPS | +80.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 FPS | 35 FPS | +157.1% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 FPS | 34 FPS | +155.9% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 49 FPS | 10 FPS | +390% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50 FPS | 16 FPS | +212.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 81 FPS | 33 FPS | +145.5% (A) |
| Valorant | 150 FPS | 85 FPS | +76.5% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 3050 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).