AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, which takes the sole head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 7925 against the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557. That is a 4.9% margin, a modest but consistent advantage in raw compute throughput. The GTX 460 also holds a higher percentile ranking context: it sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7925, while the R7 250 is also at the 41st percentile but with a lower average of 7557.

In terms of use-case splits, the GTX 460’s win is rooted in its higher memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s) and a wider 192-bit memory bus, which gives it a decisive edge in memory-heavy workloads such as texture streaming or large buffer operations. The R7 250, conversely, does not win any benchmark category in the provided data; its single score trails in every comparison. However, the R7 250’s strengths lie elsewhere: it offers a higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs. 9.450 GPixel/s) and more shading units (512 vs. 336), which could translate to better fill-rate-bound tasks if the benchmark suite were broader. Yet in the only measured test, the GTX 460’s combination of faster memory and higher texture rate (37.80 GTexel/s vs. 29.60 GTexel/s) proves decisive.

For users prioritizing compute tasks, the GTX 460 is the clear pick from the data. For those who value lower power draw or newer feature support, the R7 250 has qualitative advantages that the numbers do not capture in a single OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 12.2M / mm² — more than double the GTX 460’s density per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ drastically. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, with bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of just 28.80 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GTX 460’s bandwidth is exactly three times higher, which explains its strong OpenCL showing despite fewer shading units.

Compute resources also diverge. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 250’s higher shader count and pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs. 9.450 GPixel/s) suggest it should excel at pixel-heavy work, but its lower texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s vs. 37.80 GTexel/s) and much lower bandwidth bottleneck it in practice.

Power and physical design are starkly opposite. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The R7 250 sips power at 55 W TDP, fits in a single slot, needs no power connectors, and works with a 250 W PSU. The R7 250 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 460 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support favors the R7 250: it lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 460 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a; the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7925, which is 4.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557 in the head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 250 have more shading units than the GTX 460?

A: Yes, the R7 250 has 512 shading units compared to the GTX 460’s 336, but the GTX 460 still wins the OpenCL test due to its much higher memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 460 offers 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly three times the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s, despite the R7 250 having a larger 1 GB frame buffer versus 768 MB.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and needs no power connectors, whereas the GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP and requires two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R7 250 lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.170); the GTX 460 has no Vulkan entry in its API list.

Q: What are the pixel rates?

A: The R7 250 has a higher pixel rate at 14.80 GPixel/s, while the GTX 460 achieves 9.450 GPixel/s, yet the GTX 460’s texture rate is higher at 37.80 GTexel/s vs. 29.60 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

|-------|------------------------|-------------------|

| Chip | GF104 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 400 | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 768 MB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 3.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective |

| Shading Units | 336 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 32 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.450 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.80 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 907.2 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 160 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | None | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | None |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7925 against the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557, a 4.9% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is the sole data point, so it carries the full weight of the comparison. A 4.9% margin is not a landslide, but it is consistent with the GTX 460’s superior memory subsystem and texture throughput.

Breaking down why the GTX 460 wins: its memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s is three times that of the R7 250 (28.80 GB/s). OpenCL workloads often stress memory access patterns, and the GTX 460’s 192-bit GDDR5 interface provides far more headroom than the R7 250’s 128-bit DDR3. Additionally, the GTX 460’s texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s exceeds the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s by 27.7%, which helps in shader-heavy compute kernels that sample textures.

The R7 250 fights back with raw compute numbers: its FP32 throughput of 947.2 GFLOPS is slightly higher than the GTX 460’s 907.2 GFLOPS, a 4.4% edge. It also has 512 shading units versus 336, and a higher pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s. Yet these advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. The R7 250’s lower memory bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor, starving its extra shaders of data. In the nearest-rival context, the GTX 460 sits just 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M (7906) and 1.4% below the Quadro P5000 (8039) and GTX 880M (8040). The R7 250, meanwhile, is 0.1% above the Intel Arc A310 (7550) and 1.1% above the GTX 1650 (7472), showing it clusters with lower-tier cards.

The delta of 4.9% between these two cards is nearly identical to the performance gap between the GTX 460 and its own nearest rival, the Quadro K4100M, which is 0.2%. This suggests the GTX 460 and R7 250 are in adjacent performance tiers, but the GTX 460 consistently edges ahead in the measured test.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 is the superior performer in compute workloads, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 4.9% (7925 vs. 7557). Its 86.40 GB/s of memory bandwidth is the decisive factor, dwarfing the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s and offsetting the R7 250’s higher shader count (512 vs. 336) and slightly higher FP32 throughput (947.2 GFLOPS vs. 907.2 GFLOPS). If the task is OpenCL-based rendering, physics, or data processing, the GTX 460 is the safer choice based on the numbers.

However, the R7 250 is not without a case. Its 55 W TDP versus 160 W means it draws nearly three times less power, requires no auxiliary power connectors, and fits in a single slot. Its memory capacity is larger (1 GB vs. 768 MB), and it supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), which the GTX 460 lacks. For a system with a 250 W PSU or a compact chassis, the R7 250 is the only viable option between the two. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s also suggests it could outperform the GTX 460 in fill-rate-limited scenarios, though no benchmark confirms this.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the benchmark results, the GTX 460 wins for anyone who needs raw compute throughput and can accommodate its 160 W power draw, dual-slot cooler, and 450 W PSU requirement. The R7 250 is the pick for low-power builds or legacy systems with limited PSU headroom, where its 55 W TDP and single-slot design are decisive advantages. There is no scenario in the data where the R7 250 outperforms the GTX 460 in measured performance, but there are many scenarios where its power efficiency and modern API support make it the more practical choice. The GTX 460’s 199 USD launch MSRP is the only price data available, and it predates the R7 250 by over three years, so generational context favors the AMD card despite its lower benchmark score.