Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce MX450
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce MX450 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+5)
- + VRAM (GB) (+6 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+368 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+20 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-7 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+17,200M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+19 mm²)
- + CUDA cores (+2944)
- + TMUs (+56)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+15.95 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+69.50 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+211.40 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+41.6)
- + PassMark (overall) (+13035)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+26641)
- + Normalized score (+5.6)
B
GeForce MX450
Components are close in specs
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce MX450
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+5) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+6 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz (+250 MHz) | 1250 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s (+368 GB/s) | 80 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W (+20 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm (-7 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M (+17,200M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² (+19 mm²) | 200 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) | 19.18 TFLOPS (+15.95 TFLOPS) | 3.23 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s (+69.50 GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s (+211.40 GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+41.6) | 27.6 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 (+13035) | 3,714 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 1,900 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 (+26641) | 4,725 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 28,541 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 27,321 |
| Normalized score | 50.3 (+5.6) | 44.7 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce MX450 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | 49 FPS | +165.3% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | 88 FPS | +150% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 32 FPS | +196.9% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 34 FPS | +282.4% (A) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | 61 FPS | +178.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | 35 FPS | +328.6% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 34 FPS | +650% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | 10 FPS | +850% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 16 FPS | +587.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | 33 FPS | +324.2% (A) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | 85 FPS | +170.6% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5060 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).