Introduction

The GeForce GTS 450 is the first DirectX 11 mid-range graphics chip released by NVIDIA, and today we are publishing the review of the NVIDIA reference model. Let’s see if video cards based on this new chip are worthwhile buying.

The new GTS 450 comes on the same price range as the GeForce GTS 250 with 1 GB (which is a DirectX 10 part), making it to compete directly with the Radeon HD 5750 and indirectly with the Radeon HD 5770 (as it is a little bit more expensive), which are on the market for almost a year now.

In the table below we list all the main technical specification of the video cards included in our comparison.

Video Card	Core Clock	Shader Clock	Memory Clock (Real)	Memory Clock (Effective)	Memory Interface	Memory Transfer Rate	Memory	Shaders	DirectX
GeForce GTS 250	738 MHz	1,836 MHz	1.1 GHz	2.2 GHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	128	10
GeForce GTS 450	783 MHz	1,566 MHz	902 MHz	3,608 MHz	128-bit	57.7 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	192	11
Radeon HD 5750	700 MHz	700 MHz	1.15 GHz	4.6 GHz	128-bit	73.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	720	11
Radeon HD 5770	850 MHz	850 MHz	1.2 GHz	4.8 GHz	128-bit	76.8 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	800	11

You can compare the specs of these video cards with other video cards by taking a look at our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table and NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table tutorials.

Now let’s take an in-depth look at the GeForce GTS 450 reference sample from NVIDIA.

The GeForce GTS 450

The video card we are reviewing is the NVIDIA reference model, which is usually the exact same model video card manufacturers sell, only adding their sticker to it. So, the performance of GeForce GTS 250 video cards from NVIDIA partners should be exactly the same as the one achieved by the reviewed sample – unless, of course, the NVIDIA partner adds some overclocking to the video card. In order to differentiate themselves on the market, some manufacturers may also choose to add their own cooling solution.

click to enlarge
Figure 1: GeForce GTS 450

click to enlarge
Figure 2: GeForce GTS 450

This video card has three video outputs, two DVI-D and one HDMI.

click to enlarge
Figure 3: Video connectors

The GeForce GTS 450 (Cont’d)

In Figure 4, you can see the video card with its cooler removed. Note how it requires one six-pin auxiliary power connector. In Figures 5 and 6, you can see the cooler by itself. The cooler used on the GeForce GTS 450 is made of aluminum and cools down only the GPU.

click to enlarge
Figure 4: Video card with the cooler removed

click to enlarge
Figure 5: The GPU cooler

click to enlarge
Figure 6: The GPU cooler

The reviewed card uses eight 1 Gbit GDDR5 chips (four soldered on each side of the printed circuit board), making its 1 GB video memory (1 Gbit x 8 = 1 GB).

The chips used are K4G10325FE-HC05 parts from Samsung, which support up to 1 GHz (4 GHz QDR) and since on this video card memory is accessed at 902 MHz (3,608 MHz QDR), there is a good margin for you to increase the memory clock rate while keeping the chips inside the maximum they support. Of course you can always try to overclock the memory chips above their specs.

click to enlarge
Figure 7: Memory chips

Before seeing the performance results, let’s recap the main features of this video card.

Main Specifications

The main specifications for the GeForce GTS 450 video card include:

• Graphics chip: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 running at 783 MHz
• Memory: 1 GB GDDR5 memory (128-bit interface) from Samsung (K4G10325FE-HC05), running at 902 MHz (3,608 MHz, QDR)
• Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0
• Video Connectors: Two DVI-D and one HDMI
• Video Capture (VIVO): No
• Cables and adapters that come with this board: NA
• Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: NA
• Games included: NA
• Programs included: NA
• More information: http://www.nvidia.com
• Average Price in the US*: USD 130.00

* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.

How We Tested

During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.

Hardware Configuration

• CPU: Core i7 Extreme 965 (3.2 GHz, 8 MB L2 memory cache)
• Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition (2101 BIOS)
• Memories: 3x 2 GB G.Skill F3-10666CL7T-6GBPK (DDR3-1333/PC3-10666, CL7-7-7-18)
• Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache)
• Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560x1600)
• Power Supply: SilverStone Element ST75EF
• CPU Cooler: Intel stock
• Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N

Software Configuration

• Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
• Video resolution: 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz

Driver Versions

• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 10.9
• NVIDIA video driver version: 260.52
• Intel Inf driver version: 9.1.1.1019

Software Used

• 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
• Aliens vs. Predator + Benchmark Tool
• Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.7
• Crysis Warhead – Patch 1.1 + HOC Bench Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool 1.1.1
• Darkest of Days
• Far Cry 2 – Patch 1.03
• Metro 2033
• StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty - Patch 1.1.0

Error Margin

We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.

3DMark Vantage Professional

3DMark Vantage measures Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supports PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Note that since we are considering only the GPU score provided by this program, physics calculations are not taken into account.

We ran this program at two 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” values). The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.

3DMark Vantage – Performance	1680x1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	7578	15.3%
GeForce GTS 450	6572
Radeon HD 5750	6098	-7.2%
GeForce GTS 250	5143	-21.7%

 

3DMark Vantage – Performance	1920x1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	5932	16.0%
GeForce GTS 450	5112
Radeon HD 5750	4808	-5.9%
GeForce GTS 250	3908	-23.6%

3DMark Vantage – Extreme	1680x1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	5613	4.0%
GeForce GTS 450	5399
Radeon HD 5750	4492	-16.8%
GeForce GTS 250	3924	-27.3%

3DMark Vantage – Extreme	1920x1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	4502	6.4%
GeForce GTS 450	4231
Radeon HD 5750	3582	-15.3%
GeForce GTS 250	3022	-28.6%

StarCraft II

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is a very popular DirectX 9 game released earlier this year. Though this game uses an old version of DirectX, the number of textures that can be represented on one screen can push most of the top-end graphics cards to their limits (especially when the graphics settings are set at “Ultra”). StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty uses its own physics engine that is bound to the CPU and thus does not benefit from PhysX.

As this game is a very competitive and widespread “e-sport,” many LAN cafés and competitions will be building systems to run this game at high frame rates, but at lower graphics settings. For gamers that play StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty at a higher level, “Ultra” graphics settings can be a hindrance due to clutter. Due to this, the more popular video cards for this game will be the mid-range cards.

We tested this game on two 16:10 resolution settings, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. The quality of the game was set to the medium preset and the textures were also set to medium. We used the NVIDIA and ATI consoles to force both Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering at 4x. We then used FRAPS to collect the frame rate of a replay on the “Unit Testing” custom map. We used a battle between very large armies to stress the video cards.

Starcraft II – Medium	1680x1050	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	102.46
Radeon HD 5770	96.76	-5.6%
Radeon HD 5750	90.26	-11.9%
GeForce GTS 250	82.68	-19.3%

Starcraft II – Medium	1920x1200	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	92.52
Radeon HD 5770	90.24	-2.5%
Radeon HD 5750	84.67	-8.5%
GeForce GTS 250	64.30	-30.5%

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, exactly what will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.

To get accurate results we had to disable the 80 FPS limit in the game. To do this, input the command, “/seta com_maxfps 1000” (minus the quotes) into the console (` key). It can be set to any number greater than 200.

We ran this program at two 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was set to the maximum values in the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the internal game benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo here for downloading if you want to run your own benchmarks. We ran the demo five times, and the results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each video card.

Call of Duty 4 – Maximum	1680x1050	Difference
GeForce GTS 250	90.2	1.81%
GeForce GTS 450	88.6
Radeon HD 5770	83.9	-5.3%
Radeon HD 5750	75.5	-14.8%

Call of Duty 4 – Maximum	1920x1200	Difference
GeForce GTS 250	71.7	8.92%
Radeon HD 5770	71.5	8.59%
GeForce GTS 450	65.8
Radeon HD 5750	63.2	-4.0%

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead is a DirectX 10 game based on the same engine as the original Crysis, but optimized (it runs under DirectX 9.0c when installed on Windows XP).

We used the HardwareOC Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool to collect the data for this test. We ran this program at two 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, all at low image quality (no anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering) and using the Airfield demo. The results below are the number of frames per second achieved by each video card.

Crysis Warhead – Medium	1680x1050	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	42
GeForce GTS 250	41	-2.4%
Radeon HD 5770	41	-2.4%
Radeon HD 5750	36	-14.3%

Crysis Warhead – Medium	1920x1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	37	2.78%
GeForce GTS 450	36
GeForce GTS 250	36	0.0%
Radeon HD 5750	32	-11.1%

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10 compatible video card.

We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to High (x4 anti-aliasing and no anisotropic filtering) and running the “Ranch Long” demo three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.

FarCry 2 – Maximum	1680x1050	Difference
GeForce GTS 250	82.7	25.8%
GeForce GTS 450	65.7
Radeon HD 5770	60.7	-7.7%
Radeon HD 5750	52.4	-20.3%

FarCry 2 – Maximum	1920x1200	Difference
GeForce GTS 250	64.3	20.3%
GeForce GTS 450	53.5
Radeon HD 5770	53.3	-0.4%
Radeon HD 5750	46.3	-13.5%

Aliens vs. Predator

Aliens vs. Predator is a DirectX 11 game that makes full use of tessellation and advanced shadow rendering. We used the Aliens vs. Predator Benchmark Tool developed by Rebellion. This program reads its configuration from a text file (our configuration files can be found here). We ran this program at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions, with low texture settings, x4 anisotropic filtering and x4 anti-aliasing.

Aliens vs. Predator	1680x1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	29.9	2.0%
GeForce GTS 450	29.3
Radeon HD 5750	27.6	-5.8%
GeForce GTS 250	0	-

Aliens vs. Predator	1920x1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	28.5	8.8%
Radeon HD 5750	26.5	1.1%
GeForce GTS 450	26.2
GeForce GTS 250	0	-

Metro 2033

Metro 2033 is a DirectX 11 game. To benchmark this game we used FRAPS to record the average FPS while playing part way through the Chase level (the save file we used can be downloaded here). We ran this program at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions, setting texture quality at “Low,” anti-aliasing at “AAA,” anisotropic filtering at 4x, tessellation “on,” and DoF “off.”

Metro 2033	1680x1050	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	54.76	13.8%
Radeon HD 5750	50.28	4.5%
GeForce GTS 450	48.10
GeForce GTS 250 (DX10)	47.40	-1.5%

Metro 2033	1920x1200	Difference
Radeon HD 5770	46.64	20.5%
Radeon HD 5750	42.69	10.3%
GeForce GTS 250 (DX10)	39.47	2.0%
GeForce GTS 450	38.71

Darkest of Days

Darkest of days is a DirectX 9 game that implements a PhysX engine, moving physics calculations from the CPU to the GPU. Although it’s not very popular, we added this game because of its PhysX benchmarking feature. We ran this game at 1680x1050 with details set at “very high,” and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. We ran three tests, first with PhysX set at “low,” where the game makes all physics calculations using the system CPU, then increasing it to “medium” (which adds leaves, wind and weapons impact effects due to bullets and grenades), and finally increasing it to “high” (which adds fog and smoke effects). The medium and high PhysX levels move physics calculations from the CPU to the GPU. Keep in mind that only NVIDIA-based cards support PhysX.

Darkest of Days - 1680x1050	Low PhysX	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	112.63
Radeon HD 5770	108.65	-3.5%
Radeon HD 5750	105.68	-6.2%
GeForce GTS 250	73.10	-35.1%

Darkest of Days - 1680x1050	Medium PhysX	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	76.48
GeForce GTS 250	50.06	-34.5%
Radeon HD 5750	2.91	-96.2%
Radeon HD 5770	2.70	-96.5%

Darkest of Days - 1680x1050	High PhysX	Difference
GeForce GTS 450	42.46
GeForce GTS 250	29.60	-30.3%
Radeon HD 5750	1.42	-96.6%
Radeon HD 5770	1.28	-97.0%

Conclusions

We were truly impressed by the new GeForce GTS 450. From the eight games and simulations we ran, the GTS 450 only lost to its main competitor, the Radeon HD 5750, in one (Metro 2033). In all others it was either faster or achieved the same performance level.

The improvement in PhysX performance compared to the previous generation mid-range video card from NVIDIA, the GeForce GTS 250, was also impressive (43% improvement as measured by Darkest of Days).

If you are looking for a mid-range card in the USD 130 price range, the new GeForce GTS 450 is the way to go.