AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon 550X and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, and it is a decisive victory for the AMD part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 550X scores 8,866 points against the GTX 460’s 7,925 points. That is an 11.9% advantage for the AMD card, a substantial margin that reflects the generational gap between the two designs. The Radeon 550X’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests stands at 8,918, while the GTX 460’s average is 7,925, meaning the AMD card holds a roughly 12.5% lead in overall measured compute performance.

When placed against the broader field, the Radeon 550X sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 lands at the 41st percentile. The Radeon 550X’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660, which scores 9,022, and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition, which scores 9,037. The Radeon 550X trails both by 1.2% and 1.3% respectively, placing it within a very tight performance cluster. On the other side, the GTX 460’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M at 7,906 (0.2% behind the GTX 460) and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 at 8,039 (1.4% ahead). This suggests the GTX 460 is a solid mid-range performer for its era, but it is simply outclassed by the newer AMD architecture.

The head-to-head result is consistent with the raw specifications. The Radeon 550X delivers 1,247.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 460 produces 907.2 GFLOPS. That is a 37.5% theoretical compute advantage for the AMD part, though real-world OpenCL performance shows a tighter 11.9% gap, indicating that the GTX 460’s older Fermi architecture still extracts reasonable efficiency from its hardware. Nevertheless, the benchmark data is unambiguous: the Radeon 550X wins the only recorded head-to-head test.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 550X wins the only direct benchmark comparison, which gives it a clean 1-0 record in head-to-head wins. Its victory in OpenCL compute is the most relevant metric for general-purpose workloads, content creation, and any application that leverages GPU acceleration beyond gaming. The 11.9% delta in OpenCL means the AMD card is the stronger choice for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific compute that rely on raw shader throughput.

The GTX 460 has no recorded wins against the Radeon 550X. However, the data suggests areas where it could hold an advantage despite losing the overall benchmark. The GTX 460 has a wider 192-bit memory bus compared to the Radeon 550X’s 128-bit bus, and its 24 ROPs versus 16 on the AMD card. These factors historically favor fill-rate-bound workloads, such as high-resolution pixel pushing or legacy DirectX 9/10 games that rely heavily on raster operations. The GTX 460’s texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s is close to the Radeon 550X’s 38.98 GTexel/s, so texture-heavy scenes would see similar performance. But the database only records the OpenCL result, and there the GTX 460 cannot compete.

For modern workloads, the Radeon 550X is the clear pick. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory doubles the GTX 460’s 768 MB capacity, and its 112.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the GTX 460’s 86.40 GB/s. The AMD card also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support recorded. Any modern application that can use Vulkan will run on the Radeon 550X but simply cannot run on the GTX 460. For legacy DirectX 11 titles, the GTX 460 may still offer playable performance, but the data indicates it is the weaker overall card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The AMD Radeon 550X is built on GCN 4.0, using the Lexa chip, and belongs to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors packed into a 103 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the modern manufacturing node.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, by contrast, uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, part of the GeForce 400 generation. It is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die. Its transistor density is just 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Fermi architecture was NVIDIA’s first true compute-focused design, but it was also known for high power draw and heat. The GTX 460 carries a 160 W TDP, while the Radeon 550X sips power at just 50 W. That is a 110 W difference, making the AMD card dramatically more power-efficient.

The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The AMD card wins on shader count and FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA card has more texture units and ROPs. The Radeon 550X also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 1,247.2 GFLOPS in both precisions. The GTX 460 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support also diverges sharply. The Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it only meets the base DirectX 12 feature level, and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support recorded. For any modern API-driven workload, the AMD card is the only viable option.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The Radeon 550X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s. The AMD card has more memory and higher bandwidth, despite the narrower bus.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the GTX 460 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The Radeon 550X runs at 1082 MHz base and 1218 MHz boost. The GTX 460’s memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon 550X’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The AMD card’s memory is nearly twice as fast in effective data rate.

The Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The AMD card is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus 210 mm (8.3 inches) for the NVIDIA card. Both are dual-slot designs.

Bus interface differs as well: the Radeon 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 460 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are also different, with the AMD card offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 460 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The GTX 460 has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the Radeon 550X has no launch MSRP in the database.

The GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11, while the Radeon 550X was released on 2019-03-26, a gap of nearly nine years. The GTX 460’s predecessor is the GeForce 200 series and its successor is the GeForce 500 series. The Radeon 550X’s predecessor is Polaris and its successor is Vega. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,866 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460’s 7,925 points.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Radeon 550X has an average benchmark score of 8,918, while the GTX 460 has an average score of 7,925.

Q: How do these cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Radeon 550X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 550X supports Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 460 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP, while the GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP. The AMD card requires no power connectors and a 250 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card needs two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W PSU.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The Radeon 550X delivers 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 delivers 9.450 GPixel/s and 37.80 GTexel/s. The AMD card leads in both rates.