Radeon PRO W7700 vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 768MB
3.75

PRO W7700 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by a whopping 1286% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking68740
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data82.65
Power efficiencyno data21.61
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameno dataNavi 32
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release dateno data13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

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 cores3363072
Core clock speed675 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data28,100 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data190 Watt
Texture fill rateno data499.2
Floating-point processing powerno data31.95 TFLOPS
ROPsno data96
TMUsno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data16 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 GB/s
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 data4x DisplayPort 2.1

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3

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 HD47
−1283%
650−700
+1283%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−1264%
150−160
+1264%
Fortnite 21−24
−1204%
300−310
+1204%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−1268%
260−270
+1268%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−1253%
230−240
+1253%
Valorant 55−60
−1264%
750−800
+1264%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−1219%
950−1000
+1219%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
Dota 2 35−40
−1150%
450−500
+1150%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−1264%
150−160
+1264%
Fortnite 21−24
−1204%
300−310
+1204%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−1268%
260−270
+1268%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
−1233%
200−210
+1233%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−1253%
230−240
+1253%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−1233%
160−170
+1233%
Valorant 55−60
−1264%
750−800
+1264%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
Dota 2 35−40
−1150%
450−500
+1150%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−1264%
150−160
+1264%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−1268%
260−270
+1268%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−1253%
230−240
+1253%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−1233%
160−170
+1233%
Valorant 55−60
−1264%
750−800
+1264%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−1204%
300−310
+1204%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
−1190%
400−450
+1190%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−1190%
400−450
+1190%
Valorant 40−45
−1179%
550−600
+1179%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−1200%
130−140
+1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−1275%
220−230
+1275%
Valorant 21−24
−1281%
290−300
+1281%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Dota 2 12−14
−1285%
180−190
+1285%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1200%
65−70
+1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%

This is how GTX 460 768MB and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 1283% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.75 51.99

PRO W7700 has a 1286.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 768MB in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 768MB is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

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.


3.8 99 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 6 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 460 768MB or Radeon PRO W7700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.