GeForce GTX 460 vs Radeon RX Vega M GH

Place in the ranking	323	597
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	1.26
Power efficiency	11.80	2.54
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Polaris 22	GF104
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)	12 July 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$199

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 cores	1536	336
Core clock speed	1063 MHz	675 MHz
Boost clock speed	1190 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,000 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	160 Watt
Texture fill rate	114.2	37.80
Floating-point processing power	3.656 TFLOPS	0.9072 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	24
TMUs	96	56

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	16x PCI-E 2.0
Interface	IGP	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	204.8 GB/s	86.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D 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	4.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

RX Vega M GH 17.11
+190%

GTX 460 5.89

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

RX Vega M GH 6575
+190%

GTX 460 2265

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.

RX Vega M GH 10248
+299%

GTX 460 2570

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	58 +222%	18−20 −222%
1440p	44 +214%	14−16 −214%
4K	30 +200%	10−12 −200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	11.06
1440p	no data	14.21
4K	no data	19.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +225%	12−14 −225%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +194%	18−20 −194%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	85 +215%	27−30 −215%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +229%	14−16 −229%
Metro Exodus	55 +206%	18−20 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +225%	12−14 −225%
Valorant	65−70 +229%	21−24 −229%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +206%	18−20 −206%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Dota 2	76 +217%	24−27 −217%
Far Cry 5	46 +229%	14−16 −229%
Fortnite	90−95 +210%	30−33 −210%
Forza Horizon 4	68 +224%	21−24 −224%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +229%	14−16 −229%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +233%	18−20 −233%
Metro Exodus	38 +217%	12−14 −217%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	71 +196%	24−27 −196%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +193%	14−16 −193%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +194%	18−20 −194%
Valorant	41 +193%	14−16 −193%
World of Tanks	210−220 +201%	70−75 −201%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	41 +193%	14−16 −193%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Dota 2	95 +217%	30−33 −217%
Far Cry 5	63 +200%	21−24 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +217%	18−20 −217%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +229%	14−16 −229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +194%	16−18 −194%
Valorant	65−70 +229%	21−24 −229%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +218%	50−55 −218%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
World of Tanks	110−120 +195%	40−45 −195%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +192%	12−14 −192%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Cyberpunk 2077	2	0−1
Far Cry 5	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +207%	14−16 −207%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Valorant	40−45 +207%	14−16 −207%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Metro Exodus	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	49 +206%	16−18 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Dota 2	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Far Cry 5	21 +200%	7−8 −200%
Fortnite	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Valorant	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%

This is how RX Vega M GH and GTX 460 compete in popular games:

RX Vega M GH is 222% faster in 1080p
RX Vega M GH is 214% faster in 1440p
RX Vega M GH is 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.11	5.89
Recency	1 February 2018	12 July 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	160 Watt

RX Vega M GH has a 190.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GH is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 460 is a desktop one.

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