GeForce RTX 5080 vs GeForce4 460 Go
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce4 460 Go with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms GeForce4 460 Go by a whopping 870200% 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 | 1555 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 94 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 48.94 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.40 |
| Architecture | Celsius (1999−2005) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | NV17 A5 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 October 2002 (22 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 250 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 250 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 29 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 150 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.000 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 112 |
| TMUs | 4 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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).
| Interface | AGP 4x | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | DDR | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 250 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 8.0 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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:
| Full HD | -0−1 | 205 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 157 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 107 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.87 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.36 |
| 4K | no data | 9.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 220−230 |
| God of War | 4−5
−5900%
|
240−250
+5900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 220−230 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5900%
|
240−250
+5900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2604%
|
600−650
+2604%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−2989%
|
270−280
+2989%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 220−230 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−869900%
|
60900−60950
+869900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5900%
|
240−250
+5900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−8040%
|
400−450
+8040%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2604%
|
600−650
+2604%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 220−230 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−869900%
|
60900−60950
+869900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−5275%
|
215
+5275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5540%
|
282
+5540%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2604%
|
600−650
+2604%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−14750%
|
290−300
+14750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 170−180 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−30500%
|
300−350
+30500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1147%
|
180−190
+1147%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−9500%
|
95−100
+9500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−7800%
|
75−80
+7800%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| God of War | 195
+0%
|
195
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| God of War | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5080 is 30500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 performs better in 21 tests (38%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (63%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.01 | 87.03 |
| Recency | 14 October 2002 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 150 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 5080 has a 870200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 22 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2900% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 460 Go in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce4 460 Go is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5080 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.
