G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 465

2010

Why buy it

✅22.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($279 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌471.4% higher power demand at 200W vs 35W.
❌24000% longer card at 241mm vs 1mm.

Radeon Pro 450

2016

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 1 GB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 200W, a 165W reduction.
✅Measures 1mm instead of 241mm, a 240mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 465 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $279 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 465

2010

Radeon Pro 450

2016

Why buy it

✅22.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($279 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 1 GB).
✅Draws 35W instead of 200W, a 165W reduction.
✅Measures 1mm instead of 241mm, a 240mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌471.4% higher power demand at 200W vs 35W.
❌24000% longer card at 241mm vs 1mm.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 465 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $279 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro 450 better than GeForce GTX 465?

Yes. Radeon Pro 450 is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 2.6% higher PassMark G3D performance and 2 GB vs 1 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2016 instead of 2010, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 465 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon Pro 450 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro 450 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $279 MSRP, and you are getting lower estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 2.6% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 465 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 465 make more sense than Radeon Pro 450?

Yes. GeForce GTX 465 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is future-proofing and staying closer to $279 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro 450. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro 450 currently gives you 2.6% higher G3D Mark and lower estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. GeForce GTX 465 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 465 Benchmark Check

Radeon Pro 450 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
1080p
low	66 FPS	37 FPS
medium	54 FPS	22 FPS
high	38 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	9 FPS
1440p
low	52 FPS	25 FPS
medium	43 FPS	15 FPS
high	27 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	18 FPS	4 FPS
4K
low	20 FPS	9 FPS
medium	19 FPS	6 FPS
high	12 FPS	4 FPS
ultra	10 FPS	3 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 465 Open Radeon Pro 450

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
1080p
low	86 FPS	45 FPS
medium	61 FPS	24 FPS
high	49 FPS	17 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	11 FPS
1440p
low	48 FPS	20 FPS
medium	32 FPS	12 FPS
high	22 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	18 FPS	6 FPS
4K
low	22 FPS	6 FPS
medium	15 FPS	4 FPS
high	11 FPS	3 FPS
ultra	8 FPS	2 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 465 Open Radeon Pro 450

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
1080p
low	119 FPS	123 FPS
medium	96 FPS	98 FPS
high	80 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	60 FPS	61 FPS
1440p
low	90 FPS	92 FPS
medium	72 FPS	74 FPS
high	60 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	46 FPS
4K
low	60 FPS	61 FPS
medium	48 FPS	49 FPS
high	40 FPS	41 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	31 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 465 Open Radeon Pro 450

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
1080p
low	99 FPS	123 FPS
medium	76 FPS	98 FPS
high	66 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	57 FPS	61 FPS
1440p
low	78 FPS	92 FPS
medium	61 FPS	74 FPS
high	55 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	46 FPS
4K
low	54 FPS	59 FPS
medium	39 FPS	44 FPS
high	31 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	23 FPS	25 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 465 Open Radeon Pro 450

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 465 and Radeon Pro 450

GeForce GTX 465

The GeForce GTX 465 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 31 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 607 MHz. It has 352 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,654 points. Launch price was $279.

Radeon Pro 450

The Radeon Pro 450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 30 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 800 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,723 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 465 scores 2,654 and the Radeon Pro 450 reaches 2,723 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 465 is built on Fermi while the Radeon Pro 450 uses GCN 4.0, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 352 (GeForce GTX 465) vs 640 (Radeon Pro 450). Raw compute: 0.8554 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 465) vs 1.024 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 450).

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
G3D Mark Score	2,654	2,723+3%
Architecture	Fermi	GCN 4.0
Process Node	40 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	352	640+82%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.8554 TFLOPS	1.024 TFLOPS+20%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	44+10%	40
L1 Cache	704 KB+340%	160 KB
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 465 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon Pro 450 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 465 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB. The Radeon Pro 450 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce GTX 465) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro 450) — the Radeon Pro 450 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
VRAM Capacity	1 GB	2 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit+300%	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 465) vs 12_0 (Radeon Pro 450). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12_0
Max Displays	2	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GTX 465) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro 450). Decoder: VP4 vs UVD 6.3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
Encoder	None	VCE 3.4
Decoder	VP4	UVD 6.3
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 465 draws 200W versus the Radeon Pro 450's 35W — a 140.4% difference. The Radeon Pro 450 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (GeForce GTX 465) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 450). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 241mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 465	Radeon Pro 450
TDP	200W	35W-83%
Recommended PSU	550W	350W-36%
Power Connector	2x 6-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	241mm	1mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	85	—
Perf/Watt	13.3	77.8+485%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 465 launched at $279 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 450 launched at $0. The Radeon Pro 450 costs 100+% less ($279 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 9.5 (GeForce GTX 465) vs Infinity (Radeon Pro 450) — the Radeon Pro 450 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon Pro 450 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2010).