Component comparison
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce MX450
GeForce RTX 4080 vs GeForce MX450 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 4080
- + Release year (+3)
- + VRAM (GB) (+10 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+1000 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+636 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+192 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+85 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-8 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+41,200M)
- + CUDA cores (+8832)
- + TMUs (+240)
- + ROPs (+80)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+45.51 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+230.20 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+673.30 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+14.2)
- + PassMark (overall) (+21039)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+16634)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+36706)
- + Normalized score (+28.1)
B
GeForce MX450
- + Die size (mm²) (+179 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 4080
|
Component B
GeForce MX450
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2023 (+3) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 12 GB (+10 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2250 MHz (+1000 MHz) | 1250 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 716 GB/s (+636 GB/s) | 80 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 256 bit (+192 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 110 W (+85 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-8 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 45,900M (+41,200M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 379 mm² | 200 mm² (+179 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1575 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 9,728 (+8832) | 896 |
| TMUs | 304 (+240) | 64 |
| ROPs | 112 (+80) | 32 |
| RT cores | 76 | — |
| Tensor cores | 304 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 48.74 TFLOPS (+45.51 TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 280.60 GPixel/s (+230.20 GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 761.50 GTexel/s (+673.30 GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 41.8 (+14.2) | 27.6 |
| PassMark (overall) | 24,753 (+21039) | 3,714 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 18,534 (+16634) | 1,900 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 41,431 (+36706) | 4,725 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 28,541 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 27,321 |
| Normalized score | 72.8 (+28.1) | 44.7 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 4080 | GeForce MX450 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 160 FPS | 49 FPS | +226.5% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290 FPS | 88 FPS | +229.5% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 149 FPS | 32 FPS | +365.6% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 178 FPS | 88 FPS | +102.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 171 FPS | 34 FPS | +402.9% (A) |
| Fortnite | 270 FPS | 61 FPS | +342.6% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230 FPS | 35 FPS | +557.1% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 249 FPS | 34 FPS | +632.4% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 146 FPS | 10 FPS | +1360% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 170 FPS | 16 FPS | +962.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 334 FPS | 33 FPS | +912.1% (A) |
| Valorant | 300 FPS | 85 FPS | +252.9% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4080 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).