AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon R5 M255 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282. This gives the AMD part a decisive 8.6% advantage, the only head-to-head win recorded for either GPU. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the sole benchmark, leaving the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M with no direct victories.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores reinforce this gap. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 holds an average score of 4788 across its recorded tests, which includes a Geekbench Vulkan result of 4925. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M averages just 4282, a figure derived solely from its single OpenCL submission. The difference in average scores amounts to roughly 11.8% in favor of the AMD part, a margin consistent with the direct comparison.

Context from the nearest rivals further clarifies where each GPU sits. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, with its average score of 4788 placing it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, a far more powerful desktop-class part that scores 4791. That proximity is notable: the R5 M255 effectively matches that GPU in the database's aggregate metric, despite the massive architectural gulf. Against its own peer group, the R5 M255 is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX by 1.2% (4844).

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, by contrast, sits at the 25th percentile. Its average of 4282 is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), a result that again shows how compressed the low end of the database can be. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241). The overall picture is consistent: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU in every recorded metric, with a lead that is modest but real.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4650 against 4282 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, a delta of 8.6%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M averages 4282. That is a roughly 11.8% gap in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M have any benchmark where it beats the AMD Radeon R5 M255?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M in head-to-head testing. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 holds the only win.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon R5 M255's standing among all GPUs?

A: It sits at the 28th percentile. Its average score of 4788 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791.

Q: What is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M's standing among all GPUs?

A: It sits at the 25th percentile. Its average score of 4282 is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M support Vulkan?

A: The database lists no Vulkan support for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4650 surpasses the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M's 4282 by 8.6%, and its average benchmark score of 4788 exceeds the rival's 4282 by a wider margin. The AMD part also demonstrates a Vulkan capability that the NVIDIA GPU lacks entirely, with a recorded Vulkan score of 4925. For any workload that relies on general-purpose compute, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan rendering, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the only viable choice between the two.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its specifications suggest areas where it might hold an edge in specific use cases, even if the database does not capture them. It has a higher texture fill rate of 21.60 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s for the AMD part, though that is actually slightly lower. More significantly, the NVIDIA GPU has a 192-bit memory bus and 60.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to the AMD part's 128-bit bus and 32.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA GPU also has more ROPs (24 versus 8) and more TMUs (32 versus 24). These figures point toward the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M being better suited for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks or pixel-heavy workloads, despite its lower raw compute score. The AMD part, in contrast, has more shading units (384 versus 192) and a substantially higher FP32 throughput of 721.9 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS.

The practical takeaway from the data is that the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins on compute and modern API support, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M retains theoretical advantages in memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. For users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the AMD part is the clear pick. For legacy applications that are bandwidth-limited or that rely on older NVIDIA-optimized paths, the GTX 460M's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth could be relevant, though the recorded benchmarks do not confirm any such advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply across nearly every specification category. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses a 40 nm process. The AMD chip, codenamed Topaz, packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA GF106 die is larger at 238 mm² but holds fewer transistors at 1,170 million, resulting in a density of just 4.9 million per mm². This is a fundamental architectural advantage for AMD: more transistors in a smaller area, which typically translates to better power efficiency.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part has nearly double the memory bandwidth, a direct result of the wider bus and faster memory type, even though its raw clock is lower.

Compute resources also differ. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The AMD part has twice the shading units but one-third the ROPs. Pixel rates reflect this: the AMD GPU produces 7.520 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA GPU produces 5.400 GPixel/s. Texture rates are closer: 22.56 GTexel/s for AMD versus 21.60 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is decisively in AMD's favor at 721.9 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS, and the AMD part also lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while the NVIDIA part has no FP16 figure recorded.

The bus interface differs as well: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 50 W, an MXM Module slot width, and no power connectors, while the AMD part has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data recorded. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for NVIDIA, with no display output data for AMD. Release dates are far apart, with the NVIDIA part launching on September 2, 2010, and the AMD part on October 11, 2014.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture, a third-generation Graphics Core Next design. It belongs to the Gem System generation (R5 M200 series) and succeeded the Solar System generation, with Polaris Mobile as its successor. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses the Fermi architecture, which was NVIDIA's first fully unified GPU design. It belongs to the GeForce 400M generation, with the GeForce 300M as its predecessor and GeForce 500M as its successor. The architectural gap between GCN 3.0 and Fermi is roughly four years, which explains many of the performance differences.

API support is a major differentiator. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This means the AMD part can run modern Vulkan titles and fully utilize DirectX 12 features, while the NVIDIA GPU is limited to older API paths. The AMD part also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 4925, confirming its Vulkan capability in practice.

The chip designs reflect their respective eras. The AMD Topaz chip is a modern, dense design built for efficiency at 28 nm. The NVIDIA GF106 chip is a larger, less dense Fermi design at 40 nm. The AMD part's higher transistor count (1,550 million versus 1,170 million) combined with a much smaller die (125 mm² versus 238 mm²) indicates a more sophisticated manufacturing process and a more compact design. The NVIDIA part's larger die with fewer transistors points to an older, less efficient architecture.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products, and both were manufactured by TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is a mobile GPU with no TDP listed, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M is explicitly rated at 50 W and comes in an MXM Module form factor. The AMD part's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the NVIDIA part's PCIe 2.0 x16, though the practical bandwidth difference is minimal for these performance levels. The NVIDIA part's lack of Vulkan support and its older DirectX 11_0 feature level are the most significant architectural limitations.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.6%, holds a higher average benchmark score (4788 versus 4282), and sits at a higher percentile (28th versus 25th). Its Vulkan support and higher compute throughput (721.9 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS) make it the more capable part for modern workloads. Anyone choosing between these two for OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering should pick the AMD Radeon R5 M255 without hesitation.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M does have theoretical advantages in memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s) and ROP count (24 versus 8), which could matter for specific bandwidth-hungry or pixel-heavy tasks. Its wider 192-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory are genuinely superior to the AMD part's 128-bit DDR3 setup. However, the recorded benchmarks do not validate any practical win for the NVIDIA GPU, and its lack of Vulkan support is a hard limitation for modern applications.

For a user with legacy software that is optimized for NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, the GTX 460M might still function adequately. Its 50 W TDP and MXM form factor make it a straightforward drop-in for older mobile workstations. But the AMD Radeon R5 M255 offers better raw performance, a newer architecture, and modern API support. The database shows a clear winner: the AMD Radeon R5 M255, by a margin that is meaningful but not overwhelming.