Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs GeForce GTX 460M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460M SLI with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.
460M SLI outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by an impressive 79% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 702 | 872 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GS | Kaveri Spectre |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (12 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 cores | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
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 | 2x1536 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 52
+92.6%
| 27−30
−92.6%
|
| Full HD | 67
+379%
| 14
−379%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+37.2%
|
40−45
−37.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+60%
|
50−55
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+37.2%
|
40−45
−37.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+37.2%
|
40−45
−37.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+84.2%
|
18−20
−84.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+123%
|
21−24
−123%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how GTX 460M SLI and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:
- GTX 460M SLI is 93% faster in 900p
- GTX 460M SLI is 379% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 460M SLI is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 460M SLI surpassed R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in all 51 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.55 | 2.54 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 14 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 460M SLI has a 79% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 460M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.
