GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GTX 460 768MB

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB and GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 460 768MB
4.34

RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms GTX 460 768MB by a whopping 654% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking684171
Place by popularitynot in top-10012
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.69
Power efficiencyno data17.31
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameno dataGA106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release dateno data4 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3362560
Core clock speed675 MHz1552 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1777 MHz
Number of transistorsno data12,000 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data130 Watt
Texture fill rateno data142.2
Floating-point processing powerno data9.098 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data80
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 GB/s

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.

Display Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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 HD47
−645%
350−400
+645%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data0.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−650%
120−130
+650%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−627%
80−85
+627%
Fortnite 21−24
−639%
170−180
+639%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−637%
140−150
+637%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−606%
120−130
+606%
Valorant 55−60
−627%
400−450
+627%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−650%
120−130
+650%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−594%
500−550
+594%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
Dota 2 35−40
−650%
270−280
+650%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−627%
80−85
+627%
Fortnite 21−24
−639%
170−180
+639%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−637%
140−150
+637%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
−633%
110−120
+633%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−614%
50−55
+614%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−606%
120−130
+606%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−650%
90−95
+650%
Valorant 55−60
−627%
400−450
+627%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−650%
120−130
+650%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
Dota 2 35−40
−650%
270−280
+650%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−627%
80−85
+627%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−637%
140−150
+637%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−606%
120−130
+606%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−650%
90−95
+650%
Valorant 55−60
−627%
400−450
+627%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−639%
170−180
+639%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
−642%
230−240
+642%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
−633%
220−230
+633%
Valorant 40−45
−582%
300−310
+582%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−614%
50−55
+614%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−650%
75−80
+650%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−650%
60−65
+650%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−600%
21−24
+600%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−650%
120−130
+650%
Valorant 20−22
−650%
150−160
+650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Dota 2 12−14
−631%
95−100
+631%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−600%
35−40
+600%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

This is how GTX 460 768MB and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 645% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.34 32.73

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 654.1% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 768MB in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 98 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 13714 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 460 768MB or GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.