Radeon R7 250E vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 460 768MB outperforms Radeon R7 250E by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 627 | 634 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | no data | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | no data | 20 December 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $109 |
| Current price | $149 | $599 (5.5x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 25.60 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 819.2 gflops |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 460 768MB outperforms Radeon R7 250E by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 460 768MB outperforms Radeon R7 250E by 6% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 47
+4.4%
| 45−50
−4.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GTX 460 768MB and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- GTX 460 768MB is 4.4% faster than R7 250E in 1080p
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 4.38 | 4.28 |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 460 768MB and Radeon R7 250E.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
