GeForce GTX 460 vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 with GeForce GTX 460, including specs and performance data.
E8950 outperforms GTX 460 by a whopping 140% 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 | 423 | 658 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.96 |
| Power efficiency | 10.56 | 2.61 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 12 July 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2048 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 37.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 0.9072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376"(111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.05 | 5.43 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 12 July 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 160 Watt |
Radeon E8950 has a 140.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 68.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 460 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.
