GeForce GTX 460 SE vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with GeForce GTX 460 SE, including specs and performance data.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms GTX 460 SE by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 386 | 631 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.20 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.37 |
| Architecture | no data | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | no data | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 15 November 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $160 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 288 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 104 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 31.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7488 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 108.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Number of display connectors | no data | 2 |
| Display Connectors | no data | 2 x Dual-Link DVI-I1 x Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 28
+180%
| 10−12
−180%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 16.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+178%
|
40−45
−178%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+177%
|
65−70
−177%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+178%
|
40−45
−178%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+183%
|
30−33
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+178%
|
40−45
−178%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+174%
|
27−30
−174%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+172%
|
50−55
−172%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and GTX 460 SE compete in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 180% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.53 | 5.10 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 15 November 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 40 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 165.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 460 SE is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
