Component comparison
GeForce RTX 3060 vs GeForce MX450
GeForce RTX 3060 vs GeForce MX450 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 3060
- + Release year (+1)
- + VRAM (GB) (+10 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+280 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+55 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+7,300M)
- + CUDA cores (+2944)
- + TMUs (+56)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+7.71 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+34.90 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+110.80 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+13230)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+6322)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+16964)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+59710)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+62597)
- + Normalized score (+27.8)
B
GeForce MX450
- + Die size (mm²) (+76 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+9.1)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 3060
|
Component B
GeForce MX450
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+1) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 12 GB (+10 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | — | 1250 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 360 GB/s (+280 GB/s) | 80 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 192 bit (+128 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 80 W (+55 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 8 nm (-4 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 12,000M (+7,300M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 276 mm² | 200 mm² (+76 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1575 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 (+2944) | 896 |
| TMUs | 120 (+56) | 64 |
| ROPs | 48 (+16) | 32 |
| RT cores | 30 | — |
| Tensor cores | 120 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 10.94 TFLOPS (+7.71 TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 85.30 GPixel/s (+34.90 GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 199.00 GTexel/s (+110.80 GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 18.5 | 27.6 (+9.1) |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,944 (+13230) | 3,714 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 8,222 (+6322) | 1,900 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 21,689 (+16964) | 4,725 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 88,251 (+59710) | 28,541 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 89,918 (+62597) | 27,321 |
| Normalized score | 72.5 (+27.8) | 44.7 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 3060 | GeForce MX450 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 110 FPS | 49 FPS | +124.5% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 FPS | 88 FPS | +93.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 103 FPS | 32 FPS | +221.9% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 131 FPS | 88 FPS | +48.9% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 112 FPS | 34 FPS | +229.4% (A) |
| Fortnite | 140 FPS | 61 FPS | +129.5% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110 FPS | 35 FPS | +214.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120 FPS | 34 FPS | +252.9% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 81 FPS | 10 FPS | +710% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 124 FPS | 16 FPS | +675% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 142 FPS | 33 FPS | +330.3% (A) |
| Valorant | 190 FPS | 85 FPS | +123.5% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 3060 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).