AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database for this pair is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon R7 250. The AMD card scores 7557 points against 6389 points for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE, producing a delta of 18.3%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar historical positioning.

Context from the nearest rivals amplifies the significance of this gap. The R7 250’s score of 7557 puts it within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A310 (7550) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472). Meanwhile, the GTX 460 SE’s 6389 sits exactly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M (6389) and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330). The delta between the two cards in this test is larger than the delta between the R7 250 and any of its nearest rivals, which confirms that the performance gap here is structural rather than incidental.

The R7 250 also claims the only win in the head-to-head tally, with 1 win against 0 for the GTX 460 SE. Every measurable indicator in the database points the same way. The AMD card’s average benchmark score is 7557, while the NVIDIA card’s is 6389, a difference that holds across the entire recorded dataset. For OpenCL workloads, which stress compute throughput and memory bandwidth in parallel patterns, the R7 250’s architecture delivers meaningfully higher results.

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for ambiguity. The AMD Radeon R7 250 is the faster card in the only benchmark the database records, and it wins the head-to-head comparison outright. Users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance should select the R7 250 without hesitation. Its 18.3% advantage over the GTX 460 SE is consistent with the percentile rankings: the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th. That 4-percentile gap reflects a real, measurable difference in capability.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE, however, is not without a rationale for selection, though it is not a performance-based one. The GTX 460 SE carries a launch MSRP of 160 USD, and for users who already own one, it remains functional for legacy applications. But the database shows no benchmark where the GTX 460 SE outperforms the R7 250. The verdict is straightforward: for any workload captured by these measurements, the AMD card is the superior choice.

The GTX 460 SE does hold advantages in certain architectural specifications, such as memory bandwidth and texture fill rate, but these do not translate into a benchmark victory. The recorded data shows that the R7 250’s higher shading unit count and newer architecture overcome those specification gaps in practice. Buyers choosing between these two cards today should base their decision on the benchmark results, which favor AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors packed into a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.2M per mm², a figure that reflects the relatively modern manufacturing node.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip based on the Fermi architecture, from the GeForce 400 generation. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC, but with 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die. The transistor density drops to 5.9M per mm², less than half of the AMD chip. This is a direct consequence of the older, less dense process node.

The architectural philosophies differ sharply. The R7 250’s GCN 1.0 design employs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The GTX 460 SE’s Fermi design uses 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. AMD chose to maximize shader throughput, while NVIDIA allocated more resources to texturing and rasterization. The R7 250 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support recorded. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the R7 250 implements the 11_1 feature level, while the GTX 460 SE implements 11_0. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6.

Memory architecture also diverges. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 108.8 GB/s, nearly four times the bandwidth. Yet the benchmark does not favor the NVIDIA card, indicating that the R7 250’s compute efficiency compensates for its narrower memory pipe.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category in the database. The R7 250 has a 28 nm process node against the GTX 460 SE’s 40 nm. The R7 250’s die is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, while the GTX 460 SE’s die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. Transistor density is 12.2M per mm² for AMD versus 5.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Shading units favor AMD at 512 versus 288. Texture mapping units favor NVIDIA at 48 versus 32. Render output units favor NVIDIA at 32 versus 16. Memory clock speeds are recorded as 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 250 and 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 460 SE. Memory type differs: DDR3 for AMD, GDDR5 for NVIDIA. Bus width is 128-bit for AMD, 256-bit for NVIDIA. Memory bandwidth is 28.80 GB/s for AMD versus 108.8 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate favors AMD at 14.80 GPixel/s against 7.800 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate slightly favors NVIDIA at 31.20 GTexel/s against 29.60 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 compute favors AMD at 947.2 GFLOPS against 748.8 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. Power consumption is dramatically different: the R7 250 draws 55 W, while the GTX 460 SE draws 150 W. The suggested power supply is 250 W for AMD and 450 W for NVIDIA. The R7 250 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GTX 460 SE is dual-slot with two 6-pin connectors.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD, PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs also differ: the R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 460 SE offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. Physical length is 168 mm (6.6 inches) for AMD and 210 mm (8.3 inches) for NVIDIA. The GTX 460 SE has a recorded launch MSRP of 160 USD; the R7 250 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, which is 18.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE’s 6389.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The R7 250 scores 7557 against the Arc A310’s 7550, a difference of 0.1% in favor of AMD. The two are effectively tied.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these cards?

A: The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W. The AMD card also requires no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA card needs two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does the GTX 460 SE have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the GTX 460 SE has 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 memory, while the R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s from 128-bit DDR3. Despite this, the R7 250 wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The R7 250 is at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 SE is at the 37th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 18.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline result, but the supporting data reinforces this dominance. The R7 250 also wins on power efficiency, drawing 55 W against the GTX 460 SE’s 150 W, a 95 W difference that makes it suitable for systems with modest power supplies. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors simplify installation in compact builds. The R7 250 also offers newer display outputs, including DisplayPort 1.2, which the GTX 460 SE lacks. For users who prioritize compute performance, power efficiency, and modern connectivity, the R7 250 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE wins in specific specification categories, though not in benchmarks. Its 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory provide 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 3.8 times the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s. Its 48 texture mapping units and 32 render output units exceed the R7 250’s 32 and 16, respectively. Its texture rate of 31.20 GTexel/s is slightly ahead of the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s. These specifications suggest the GTX 460 SE could excel in texture-heavy or bandwidth-bound workloads, but the database does not contain a benchmark that demonstrates this. The GTX 460 SE also has a recorded launch MSRP of 160 USD, which may be relevant for historical reference. For users who already own a GTX 460 SE, it remains a functional card for legacy DirectX 11 applications, but the data offers no reason to choose it over the R7 250 in a new purchase.