ATI Radeon X1650 vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB and Radeon X1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 460 768MB
4.25
+2261%

GTX 460 768MB outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 2261% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6841409
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameno dataRV516
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release dateno data20 November 2007 (17 years ago)

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 cores336no data
Core clock speed675 MHz635 MHz
Number of transistorsno data107 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data80 nm
Texture fill rateno data2.540
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz392 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data6.272 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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX119.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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
+4600%
1−2
−4600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11 0−1
Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
Valorant 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11 0−1
Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+2300%
3−4
−2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 15 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Valorant 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Valorant 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Valorant 40−45
+4300%
1−2
−4300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18 0−1
Valorant 20−22 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5 0−1

This is how GTX 460 768MB and ATI X1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 460 768MB is 4600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.25 0.18

GTX 460 768MB has a 2261.1% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 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
ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650

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 97 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 69 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 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 Radeon X1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.