Radeon Graphics vs RX 460

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 460 and Radeon Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX 460
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.18
+437%

RX 460 outperforms Graphics by a whopping 437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking447916
Place by popularitynot in top-10011
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.12no data
Power efficiency9.719.05
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBaffinRenoir
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date8 August 2016 (8 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$86 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 cores896448
Core clock speed1090 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2042.00
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs5628

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 x8IGP
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1750 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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 (12_1)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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.

RX 460 9.18
+437%
Radeon Graphics 1.71

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 460 4101
+437%
Radeon Graphics 764

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 HD41
+486%
7−8
−486%
1440p50
+456%
9−10
−456%
4K20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.10no data
1440p1.72no data
4K4.30no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+489%
9−10
−489%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+489%
9−10
−489%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Far Cry 5 40
+471%
7−8
−471%
Fortnite 116
+452%
21−24
−452%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+470%
10−11
−470%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 36
+500%
6−7
−500%
Valorant 90−95
+488%
16−18
−488%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+489%
9−10
−489%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+452%
27−30
−452%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Dota 2 70−75
+492%
12−14
−492%
Far Cry 5 37
+517%
6−7
−517%
Fortnite 39
+457%
7−8
−457%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+440%
10−11
−440%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+483%
6−7
−483%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 21
+600%
3−4
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 28
+460%
5−6
−460%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+517%
6−7
−517%
Valorant 90−95
+488%
16−18
−488%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Dota 2 70−75
+492%
12−14
−492%
Far Cry 5 34
+467%
6−7
−467%
Forza Horizon 4 41
+486%
7−8
−486%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+475%
4−5
−475%
Valorant 90−95
+488%
16−18
−488%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 31
+520%
5−6
−520%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+443%
14−16
−443%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+467%
9−10
−467%
Valorant 110−120
+511%
18−20
−511%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6 0−1
Metro Exodus 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Valorant 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+500%
6−7
−500%
Far Cry 5 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

This is how RX 460 and Graphics compete in popular games:

  • RX 460 is 486% faster in 1080p
  • RX 460 is 456% faster in 1440p
  • RX 460 is 567% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.18 1.71
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

RX 460 has a 436.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.

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 RX 460
Radeon RX 460
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

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 1074 votes

Rate Radeon RX 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 7070 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 460 or Radeon Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.