GeForce GTX 460 SE vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile with GeForce GTX 460 SE, including specs and performance data.
560 Mobile outperforms 460 SE by a whopping 116% 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 | 478 | 682 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | 1.05 |
| Power efficiency | 12.16 | 2.44 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 15 November 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $160 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 560 Mobile has 440% better value for money than GTX 460 SE.
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 | 1024 | 288 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 104 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 76.93 | 31.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.462 TFLOPS | 0.7488 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| 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 | no data | 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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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.
| Number of display connectors | no data | 2 |
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 2 x Dual-Link DVI-I1 x Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
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 | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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 | 43
+139%
| 18−20
−139%
|
| 4K | 36
+125%
| 16−18
−125%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33
+282%
| 8.89
−282%
|
| 4K | 2.78
+260%
| 10.00
−260%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 282% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 260% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+118%
|
40−45
−118%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+143%
|
40−45
−143%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+121%
|
70−75
−121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+147%
|
30−33
−147%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+133%
|
27−30
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+143%
|
40−45
−143%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+147%
|
30−33
−147%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+139%
|
18−20
−139%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+143%
|
40−45
−143%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50
+138%
|
21−24
−138%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+128%
|
50−55
−128%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+129%
|
24−27
−129%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and GTX 460 SE compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 139% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 125% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.16 | 4.70 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 15 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has a 116.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 460 SE 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.
