Notebookcheck

NVIDIA GeForce MX450 found to be 33.5% faster than the MX350 in gaming — half the memory bandwidth and ROPs of the GTX 1650 but with higher power draw than the GTX 1650 Max-Q

The NVIDIA MX450 promises to offer good gains over the MX350. (Image Source: NVIDIA)
The NVIDIA MX450 promises to offer good gains over the MX350. (Image Source: NVIDIA)
NVIDIA recently announced the GeForce MX450 based on the TU117 GTX 1650 GPU but was quiet about the specs or performance. Chinese publication Zhuanlan has managed to take the MX450 for a test ride and found that it offers a very good performance bump over the MX350. However, this is at the expense of reduced memory bandwidth and raster operator (ROPs) count along with surprisingly higher power draws compared to the GTX 1650 Max-Q.

Earlier this year, we exclusively reported on NVIDIA's plans to launch a Turing-based GeForce MX350 successor. Recently, NVIDIA officially unveiled this GPU called the GeForce MX450 but did not detail any specifications. Now, we are getting to know from preliminary benchmarks that the MX450 is about 33.5% faster than the MX350 in gaming.

From what we know so far, the GeForce MX450 (N18S-G5 series) is a TU117 (GTX 1650) GPU with 64-bit memory and PCIe Gen 4 support. The MX450 is slated to be available in both GDDR5 and GDDR6 memory variants with 896 CUDA cores and a TDP between 25 to 28.5 W. With such specs, the MX450 should be able to pose some tough competition to the upcoming Intel Tiger Lake Xe LP GPUs.

For more information about different N18S-G5 MX450 variants including known clocks, memory frequencies, and TDPs check out our dedicated NVIDIA GeForce MX450 page.

The presence of these variants is to maximize the use of the existing GTX 1650 or MX350 boards enabling OEMs an easy upgrade path to the MX450. In fact, the "top version" of the MX450 (N18S-G5-B-GBD-128) rated at 28.5 W TDP is basically the same as the GTX 1650 and can be used as long as the laptop chassis can efficiently dissipate all that heat. The regular 25 W version (N18S-G5-GB2E-64) can share the same board as the MX150/MX250/MX350 to save R&D costs but to do so, it needs to use GDDR5 memory. 

Die size comparison between small package MX450 (left) and the MX350 (right). (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
Die size comparison between small package MX450 (left) and the MX350 (right). (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 in NVInspector. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 in NVInspector. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 GPU-Z-1. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 GPU-Z-1. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 GPU-Z-2. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 GPU-Z-2. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 spec comparison with rest of the MX series. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 spec comparison with rest of the MX series. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
 

Chinese website Zhuanlan could perform a few synthetic and gaming benchmarks to see how the MX450 fares in comparison with the competition particularly with the MX350, Vega 8 (Ryzen 9 4900H), and the Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Core i7-1065G7) among others. Zhuanlan notes that the memory has been artificially limited to GDDR6 speeds.

Zuhanlan tested three titles at 1080p on the MX450 test system — Left 4 Dead 2 (highest), The Witcher 3 (medium), and Watch Dogs 2 (low). In gaming, the MX450 shows about 33.5% better performance than the MX350. Overclocking the memory to 13 Gbps offers 74 fps in Watch Dogs 2 and 48 fps in The Witcher 3.

MX450 synthetic benchmarks. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 synthetic benchmarks. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
(Image Source: Zhuanlan)
(Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 vs GTX series. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 vs GTX series. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
(Image Source: Zhuanlan)
(Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 gaming tests - Left 4 Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Watch Dogs 2. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
MX450 gaming tests - Left 4 Dead 2, The Witcher 3, and Watch Dogs 2. (Image Source: Zhuanlan)
 

Below is a comparison of 3DMark results of the MX450 from Zhuanlan with what we already know about Tiger Lake Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 96 EUs.

3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance GPU
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX450
 
8950 Points ∼100%
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Intel Iris Xe Graphics
6710 Points ∼75%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX350
  (6135 - 6448, n=3)
6245 Points ∼70%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE
6085 Points ∼68%
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Acer Spin 5 SP513-54N-79EY
4560 Points ∼51%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo ThinkPad E14 Gen2-20T7S00W00
4392 Points ∼49%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
HP ProBook 455 G7-175W8EA
4019 Points ∼45%
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Dell Latitude 7310
1960 Points ∼22%
3DMark
2560x1440 Time Spy Graphics
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX450
 
1680 Points ∼100%
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Intel Iris Xe Graphics
1590 Points ∼95%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX350
  (1343 - 1370, n=2)
1357 Points ∼81%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE
1173 Points ∼70%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo ThinkPad E14 Gen2-20T7S00W00
821 Points ∼49%
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Acer Spin 5 SP513-54N-79EY
791 Points ∼47%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
HP ProBook 455 G7-175W8EA
742 Points ∼44%
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Dell Latitude 7310
415 Points ∼25%
1920x1080 Fire Strike Graphics
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX450
 
7500 Points ∼100%
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Intel Iris Xe Graphics
4820 Points ∼64%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX350
  (4340 - 4457, n=3)
4405 Points ∼59%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE
3938 Points ∼53%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo ThinkPad E14 Gen2-20T7S00W00
2802 Points ∼37%
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Acer Spin 5 SP513-54N-79EY
2504 Points ∼33%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
HP ProBook 455 G7-175W8EA
2425 Points ∼32%
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Dell Latitude 7310
1325 Points ∼18%
1280x720 Cloud Gate Standard Graphics
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Intel Iris Xe Graphics
38040 Points ∼100%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo Yoga Slim 7-14ARE
27160 Points ∼71%
Average NVIDIA GeForce MX350
  (24723 - 24744, n=2)
24734 Points ∼65%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000)
Lenovo ThinkPad E14 Gen2-20T7S00W00
21604 Points ∼57%
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
HP ProBook 455 G7-175W8EA
16972 Points ∼45%
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Acer Spin 5 SP513-54N-79EY
15287 Points ∼40%
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Dell Latitude 7310
10505 Points ∼28%

From the preliminary benchmarks, it appears that the MX450 does offer a fairly significant advantage over the MX350 — we see about 33.5% higher scores in gaming. Though the MX450 is essentially a TU117 GTX 1650, it suffers nearly a 37% performance penalty due to restricted memory bandwidth (64-bit instead of 128-bit) and reduced raster operators (ROPs; 16 vs 32 in the GTX 1650). A good portion of the performance loss appears to be recoverable by overclocking the memory to 13 Gbps, but most laptop users are unlikely to do so keeping battery life in mind.

Zhuanlan also notes that the MX450 does have higher power consumption. In The Witcher 3, the average power consumption was between 30.5 and 31.3 W and was found to exceed even that of the GTX 1650 Max-Q (28.5 W). 

Check out Zhuanlan's full review at the Source link below. We will, of course, be doing our own set of reviews as soon as MX450-powered laptops become available, so stay tuned.

Source(s)

OwnSnap via Zhuanlan Zhihu (Chinese)

Read all 5 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > News > News Archive > Newsarchive 2020 08 > NVIDIA GeForce MX450 found to be 33.5% faster than the MX350 in gaming — half the memory bandwidth and ROPs of the GTX 1650 but with higher power draw than the GTX 1650 Max-Q
Vaidyanathan Subramaniam, 2020-09-10 (Update: 2020-09-10)
Vaidyanathan Subramaniam
I am a cell and molecular biologist and computers have been an integral part of my life ever since I laid my hands on my first PC which was based on an Intel Celeron 266 MHz processor, 16 MB RAM and a modest 2 GB hard disk. Since then, I’ve seen my passion for technology evolve with the times. From traditional floppy based storage and running DOS commands for every other task, to the connected cloud and shared social experiences we take for granted today, I consider myself fortunate to have witnessed a sea change in the technology landscape. I honestly feel that the best is yet to come, when things like AI and cloud computing mature further. When I am not out finding the next big cure for cancer, I read and write about a lot of technology related stuff or go about ripping and re-assembling PCs and laptops.