GeForce GTX 460 OEM vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce GTX 460 OEM, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.76
+60.8%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms GTX 460 OEM by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking649789
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.68no data
Power efficiency9.471.38
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameLexaGF104
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)11 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores512336
Core clock speed925 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0136.40
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.8736 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3256

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mm210 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz850 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s108.8 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Fortnite 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+75.6%
45−50
−75.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Dota 2 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Fortnite 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Dota 2 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Valorant 45−50
+63.3%
30−33
−63.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Valorant 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.76 2.96
Recency 4 June 2017 11 October 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 150 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 60.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 328.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 OEM in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 460 OEM is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 OEM
GeForce GTX 460 OEM

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 16 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO WX 2100 or GeForce GTX 460 OEM, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.