AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 and AMD Radeon HD 8850M represent two distinct eras of mobile and desktop graphics, separated by roughly three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single direct benchmark comparison, with the GTX 460 holding a 6.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL performance, scoring 7925 against the HD 8850M’s 7447. This gap, while modest, carries significant weight when contextualized against each card’s position in the broader GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head data point is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 emerges victorious with a score of 7925 versus the AMD Radeon HD 8850M’s 7447. This translates to a 6.4% advantage for the GTX 460, a meaningful margin in raw compute throughput. The GTX 460’s win is not a landslide, but it is a consistent one — the score difference of 478 points places the two cards in adjacent performance tiers rather than different leagues.

Examining the rival context sharpens this picture. The GTX 460’s nearest competitors include the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M at 7906 (just 0.2% behind the GTX 460) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8040 (1.4% ahead). This clustering suggests the GTX 460 sits at the edge of a performance plateau, where small architectural advantages translate into measurable score differences. The HD 8850M, by contrast, is bracketed by the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7425 (0.3% behind), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 sitting 0.3% ahead at 7472. The HD 8850M’s neighborhood is tighter, with its closest rivals within 0.3% either way, indicating that its 7447 score represents a stable midpoint rather than an outlier.

The percentile rankings reinforce this narrative. The GTX 460 holds a 41st percentile position among all GPUs, while the HD 8850M sits at the 40th percentile. This one-percentile gap mirrors the 6.4% benchmark delta, confirming that the GTX 460’s lead is real but narrow. In practical terms, the GTX 460 outperforms the HD 8850M in OpenCL compute by a margin that would be noticeable in GPU-accelerated workloads but not transformative in everyday usage. The data does not suggest the HD 8850M is a weak performer; rather, it shows the GTX 460 as a slightly stronger one, with the gap driven by differences in raw compute architecture rather than any single dominant feature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7925, which is 6.4% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M’s 7447.

Q: How does the GTX 460 compare to its closest rival, the Quadro K4100M?

A: The GTX 460 (7925) is 0.2% ahead of the Quadro K4100M (7906), making the two effectively performance peers in OpenCL benchmarks.

Q: What is the HD 8850M’s position relative to the Intel UHD Graphics 750?

A: The HD 8850M (7447) leads the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) by a negligible 0.1%, placing them in the same performance band.

Q: Does the GTX 460 outperform the HD 8850M in all benchmark categories?

A: The provided data includes only one benchmark test (Geekbench OpenCL), where the GTX 460 wins. There are no other head-to-head results to assess.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank among all GPUs globally?

A: The GTX 460 falls in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8850M falls in the 40th percentile, a one-percentile difference.

Q: Is the GTX 460’s lead over the HD 8850M consistent with its rival positioning?

A: Yes. The GTX 460’s rivals score between 7906 and 8053, all above the HD 8850M’s 7447, confirming the GTX 460 operates in a higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody fundamentally different design philosophies. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The HD 8850M, in contrast, employs the Venus chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm process. The Venus chip packs 1,500 million transistors into a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter — more than double the GTX 460’s density.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 460 ships with 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s. The HD 8850M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory but on a narrower 128-bit bus, producing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having less than half the memory capacity, the GTX 460 delivers 35% more memory bandwidth, a critical factor for compute-heavy workloads. Clock speeds tell a different story: the GTX 460 runs memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the HD 8850M’s memory operates at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The HD 8850M also has explicit base and boost clocks of 575 MHz and 625 MHz, respectively, whereas the GTX 460’s core clocks are not listed.

Compute resources reveal a trade-off. The GTX 460 fields 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The HD 8850M counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8850M’s shading unit count is nearly double, but its texture and pixel throughput lag: the GTX 460 achieves 37.80 GTexel/s and 9.450 GPixel/s, while the HD 8850M manages 25.00 GTexel/s and 10.00 GPixel/s. Floating-point performance favors the GTX 460 at 907.2 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the HD 8850M. The GTX 460’s older Fermi architecture compensates for fewer shaders with higher clock efficiency and a wider memory bus.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 6.4% score advantage over the HD 8850M is reinforced by its higher percentile ranking (41st versus 40th) and a rival set that clusters at higher score levels. The GTX 460’s nearest competitors all exceed 7900 points, while the HD 8850M’s rivals hover near 7400–7500. This separation indicates the GTX 460 belongs to a faster performance class, even though both cards are end-of-life products.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, the GTX 460 is the data-backed choice. Its 907.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 86.40 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a tangible edge in OpenCL workloads. The HD 8850M’s advantages — 2 GB memory capacity, newer 28 nm process, and PCIe 3.0 interface — do not translate into benchmark victories in the available data. The HD 8850M’s higher shading unit count (640 versus 336) suggests potential in specific shader-bound scenarios, but this does not materialize in the Geekbench OpenCL result. The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 460 wins the only measured comparison, and the surrounding data supports that outcome.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip on a 40 nm process, while the HD 8850M uses the Venus chip on a 28 nm process. Transistor counts are 1,950 million versus 1,500 million, with die sizes of 332 mm² and 123 mm², respectively. The GTX 460 has a higher transistor density of 5.9M per mm², while the HD 8850M achieves 12.2M per mm².

Memory specifications show the GTX 460 with 768 MB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus (86.40 GB/s bandwidth), versus the HD 8850M’s 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (64.00 GB/s). The GTX 460’s memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the HD 8850M runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; the HD 8850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 9.450 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 and 10.00 GPixel/s for the HD 8850M, while texture rates are 37.80 GTexel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 907.2 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications exist only for the GTX 460: a 160 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 6-pin power connectors, 450 W suggested PSU, and a 210 mm (8.3 inches) length. The HD 8850M lacks these data points. Interface differences are notable: the GTX 460 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the HD 8850M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support shows the GTX 460 with DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the HD 8850M offers DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs are listed only for the GTX 460 (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a). The GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD; the HD 8850M was released on 2013-03-31 with no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 wins in raw compute benchmarks, as demonstrated by its 6.4% Geekbench OpenCL lead. Its 907.2 GFLOPS FP32 output and 86.40 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications. The GTX 460 also wins in texture throughput (37.80 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s), which could benefit texture-heavy workloads. Its wider 192-bit memory bus provides a bandwidth advantage that the HD 8850M cannot offset despite its faster memory clock.

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins in memory capacity, offering 2 GB versus the GTX 460’s 768 MB. This could matter for applications requiring larger frame buffers. The HD 8850M also wins on pixel rate (10.00 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s), albeit marginally. Its 640 shading units versus 336 suggest potential advantages in shader-bound tasks, though this does not translate into a benchmark victory. The HD 8850M’s newer 28 nm process and PCIe 3.0 interface are modern advantages, but the data does not show them converting into performance wins. The GTX 460’s single benchmark victory, combined with its superior spec sheet in compute-critical areas, makes it the winner for OpenCL-focused users. The HD 8850M appeals primarily to those needing more memory or newer interface standards, but in the measured metric, the GTX 460 stands ahead.