Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 470 vs Radeon RX 460
Aggregated performance score
RX 460
2016
4 GB GDDR5
10.59
+32%
GTX 470
2010
1280 MB GDDR5
8.02
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 32% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 396 | 479 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.33 | 8.13 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 11 / Baffin XT | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 August 2016 (7 years old) | 12 April 2010 (14 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $349 |
| Current price | $397 (4.6x MSRP) | $9.98 (0x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 470 has 511% better value for money than RX 460.
Technical specs
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 | 896 | 448 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1090 MHz | 607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 67.20 | 34.0 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops | 1,088.6 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 9.5" (241 mm) (24.1 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | Two 6-pins |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 133.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 32% based on our aggregated 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%
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 32% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 98% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 107% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 460 outperforms GeForce GTX 470 by 35% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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:
| 900p | 65−70
+25%
| 52
−25%
|
| Full HD | 41
−56.1%
| 64
+56.1%
|
| 1200p | 65−70
+22.6%
| 53
−22.6%
|
| 1440p | 55
+37.5%
| 40−45
−37.5%
|
| 4K | 20
+42.9%
| 14−16
−42.9%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 34
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 34
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 34
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 28
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16
−37.5%
|
21−24
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+94.7%
|
18−20
−94.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+92.9%
|
27−30
−92.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 28
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 17
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+78.9%
|
18−20
−78.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+46.4%
|
27−30
−46.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how RX 460 and GTX 470 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- RX 460 is 25% faster than GTX 470
1080p resolution:
- GTX 470 is 56.1% faster than RX 460
1200p resolution:
- RX 460 is 22.6% faster than GTX 470
1440p resolution:
- RX 460 is 37.5% faster than GTX 470
4K resolution:
- RX 460 is 42.9% faster than GTX 470
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 460 is 143% faster than the GTX 470.
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 470 is 37.5% faster than the RX 460.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 460 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
- GTX 470 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 10.59 | 8.02 |
| Recency | 8 August 2016 | 12 April 2010 |
| Cost | $86 | $349 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 470 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
