GeForce GTX 460 768MB vs Radeon R7 250X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250X and GeForce GTX 460 768MB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250X
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
5.90
+35%

R7 250X outperforms GTX 460 768MB by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking593674
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.63no data
Power efficiency5.09no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCape Verdeno data
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores640336
Core clock speedno data675 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nmno data
Power consumption (TDP)80 Wattno data
Texture fill rate38.00no data
Floating-point processing power1.216 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no data

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1211
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data

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. 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.

R7 250X 5.90
+35%
GTX 460 768MB 4.37

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.

R7 250X 2860
+36.7%
GTX 460 768MB 2092

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 HD55−60
+25%
44
−25%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Elden Ring 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Elden Ring 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R7 250X and GTX 460 768MB compete in popular games:

  • R7 250X is 25% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.90 4.37

R7 250X has a 35% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 768MB in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 250X
Radeon R7 250X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 164 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 96 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.