Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs GeForce GTX 460

Place in the ranking	592	806
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.16	no data
Power efficiency	2.54	26.30
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	no data
GPU code name	GF104	no data
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	12 July 2010 (14 years ago)	6 December 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	336	no data
Core clock speed	675 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,950 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	7 Watt
Texture fill rate	37.80	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.9072 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	24	no data
TMUs	56	no data

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	16x PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	no data
Length	210 mm	no data
Height	4.376"(111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data
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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	192 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	86.4 GB/s	no data
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.

Display Connectors	Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI	no data
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.1	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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.

GTX 460 5.86
+120%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2.66

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 460 2260
+120%

Qualcomm Adreno 690 1027

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.

GTX 460 2570

Qualcomm Adreno 690 2933
+14.1%

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

45−50
+105%

−105%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.42

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +0%	9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

This is how GTX 460 and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:

GTX 460 is 105% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.86	2.66
Recency	12 July 2010	6 December 2018
Chip lithography	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	7 Watt

GTX 460 has a 120.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm Adreno 690, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 2185.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 690 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.