NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 3.1x more core clock speed: 1566 MHz vs 500 MHz
- Around 5% higher texture fill rate: 25.1 billion / sec vs 24 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 192 vs 96
- 2.5x better floating-point performance: 601.3 gflops vs 240 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.3x more memory clock speed: 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz vs 800 MHz
- 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1322 vs 462
- Around 74% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 304 vs 175
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3325 vs 2485
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3325 vs 2485
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 September 2010 vs 1 November 2007 |
Core clock speed | 1566 MHz vs 500 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 25.1 billion / sec vs 24 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 192 vs 96 |
Floating-point performance | 601.3 gflops vs 240 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz vs 800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1322 vs 462 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 vs 175 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 vs 2485 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 vs 2485 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX
- Around 63% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 106 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 106 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 | NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1322 | 462 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 175 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4926 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.758 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 302.509 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.965 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.925 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.656 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2160 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3365 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3325 | 2485 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2160 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3365 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3325 | 2485 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 | NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
Code name | GF106 | G92 |
Launch date | 13 September 2010 | 1 November 2007 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | |
Place in performance rating | 1144 | 1145 |
Price now | $64.99 | |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 26.46 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1566 MHz | 500 MHz |
CUDA cores | 192 | 96 |
Floating-point performance | 601.3 gflops | 240 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | |
Pipelines | 192 | 96 |
Texture fill rate | 25.1 billion / sec | 24 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 106 Watt | 65 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,170 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI, Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
Length | 8.25" (210 mm) (21 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin | None |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
SLI | ||
Gigathread technology | ||
HDCP-capable | ||
HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting) | ||
PCI-E 16x | ||
PowerMizer 7.0 |