Radeon HD 6350 vs GeForce GTX 460M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460M with Radeon HD 6350, including specs and performance data.
460M outperforms HD 6350 by a whopping 785% 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 | 820 | 1366 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.50 | 1.34 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Park |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 7 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $23 |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 0.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 128 KB |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 60.0 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API with Feature Level 12.1 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 | 30
+900%
| 3−4
−900%
|
| Full HD | 38
+850%
| 4−5
−850%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 460M and HD 6350 compete in popular games:
- GTX 460M is 900% faster in 900p
- GTX 460M is 850% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.92 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 7 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 460M has a 785% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD 6350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 163% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 460M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6350 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6350 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.
