GeForce GTX 460 SE v2 vs Radeon R9 290

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking257not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.89no data
Power efficiency5.30no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameHawaiiGF114
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (10 years ago)15 November 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

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 cores2560288
Core clock speed947 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate151.531.20
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.7488 TFLOPS
ROPs6424
TMUs16048

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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm210 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 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 amount4 GB768 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz850 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s81.6 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 November 2013 15 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 768 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 150 Watt

R9 290 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 460 SE v2, on the other hand, has 83.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GTX 460 SE v2. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE v2
GeForce GTX 460 SE v2

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 546 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 460 SE v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.