GeForce RTX 5060 vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5060 outperforms RX 470 Mobile by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.72 | 8.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | GB206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) | March 2025 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2048 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 2235 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 362.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 23.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 144 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−13.9%
|
80−85
+13.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−15.5%
|
65−70
+15.5%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−11.8%
|
100−110
+11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−14.3%
|
80−85
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−17.2%
|
75−80
+17.2%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−9.8%
|
140−150
+9.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−13.9%
|
80−85
+13.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−8.8%
|
230−240
+8.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−15.5%
|
65−70
+15.5%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−11.8%
|
100−110
+11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−14.3%
|
80−85
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−15.6%
|
70−75
+15.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−19.4%
|
40−45
+19.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−17.2%
|
75−80
+17.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−21.3%
|
55−60
+21.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−9.8%
|
140−150
+9.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−13.9%
|
80−85
+13.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−15.5%
|
65−70
+15.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−14.3%
|
80−85
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−6.4%
|
50−55
+6.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−17.2%
|
75−80
+17.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−21.3%
|
55−60
+21.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−9.8%
|
140−150
+9.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
−11.8%
|
100−110
+11.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−14.4%
|
140−150
+14.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−17.2%
|
30−35
+17.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−4.8%
|
170−180
+4.8%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−9.5%
|
180−190
+9.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−16.7%
|
55−60
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−18.4%
|
45−50
+18.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−16.3%
|
50−55
+16.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−17.9%
|
45−50
+17.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−16.1%
|
35−40
+16.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−20.8%
|
27−30
+20.8%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−17.7%
|
110−120
+17.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5060 is 23% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5060 is ahead in 60 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.02 | 20.88 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 170 Watt |
RX 470 Mobile has 100% lower power consumption.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has a 15.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 470 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 5060 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
