Radeon R7 M460 vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 with Radeon R7 M460, including specs and performance data.
GTX 690 outperforms R7 M460 by a whopping 421% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 335 | 763 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.99 | 0.11 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Meso |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 21 February 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
| Current price | $411 (0.4x MSRP) | $900 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 690 has 1709% better value for money than R7 M460.
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 | 1536 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 3072 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 984 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 234 billion/sec | 27.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 3,130 gflops | 864.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 690 and Radeon R7 M460 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 11.0" (27.9 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Live | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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 690 outperforms Radeon R7 M460 by 421% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 690 outperforms Radeon R7 M460 by 420% in Passmark.
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 690 outperforms Radeon R7 M460 by 1018% 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 | 65−70
+400%
| 13
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 690 and R7 M460 compete in popular games:
- GTX 690 is 400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.43 | 2.77 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 21 February 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 2 GB |
The GeForce GTX 690 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M460 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 690 is a desktop card while Radeon R7 M460 is a notebook one.
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.
