GeForce RTX 4060 Ti vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.63

RTX 4060 Ti outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1832% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking78242
Place by popularitynot in top-10021
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data83.04
Power efficiencyno data25.29
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreAD106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 January 2014 (11 years ago)18 May 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores5124352
Core clock speed720 MHz2310 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2535 MHz
Number of transistorsno data22,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data160 Watt
Texture fill rateno data344.8
Floating-point processing powerno data22.06 TFLOPS
ROPsno data48
TMUsno data136
Tensor Coresno data136
Ray Tracing Coresno data34

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data240 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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 HD18
−1567%
300−350
+1567%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Battlefield 5 10−11
−1800%
190−200
+1800%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Fortnite 14−16
−1767%
280−290
+1767%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1829%
270−280
+1829%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−1823%
250−260
+1823%
Valorant 45−50
−1748%
850−900
+1748%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Battlefield 5 10−11
−1800%
190−200
+1800%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
−1752%
1000−1050
+1752%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Dota 2 29
−1797%
550−600
+1797%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Fortnite 14−16
−1767%
280−290
+1767%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1829%
270−280
+1829%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
−1789%
170−180
+1789%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−1823%
250−260
+1823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
−1800%
190−200
+1800%
Valorant 45−50
−1748%
850−900
+1748%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−1800%
190−200
+1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Dota 2 26
−1823%
500−550
+1823%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1829%
270−280
+1829%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−1823%
250−260
+1823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Valorant 45−50
−1748%
850−900
+1748%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
−1767%
280−290
+1767%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
−1805%
400−450
+1805%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−1700%
450−500
+1700%
Valorant 27−30
−1752%
500−550
+1752%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Valorant 14−16
−1829%
270−280
+1829%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Dota 2 8−9
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and RTX 4060 Ti compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4060 Ti is 1567% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.63 50.82
Recency 14 January 2014 18 May 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

RTX 4060 Ti has a 1832.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

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 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti

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.


3.3 15 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 9980 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4060 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) or GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.