AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two mobile and desktop graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 records a score of 29629, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 records 6612. The delta is stark: the NVIDIA part finishes 348.1% ahead, a difference that dwarfs nearly any other pairing in the database. This is not a marginal win; it is a category-level gap.

To put that score in context, the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 7472 across its recorded tests. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is only 0.3% behind, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% behind. The only rival that beats it in that cluster is the Intel Arc A310, which is 1% faster. This means the GTX 1650, despite its age, is positioned at a competitive equilibrium with a handful of modern integrated and low-end discrete parts.

The R7 M460, by contrast, records a 38th percentile standing, with an average benchmark score of 6612. Its rivals are similarly close: the AMD Radeon HD 7730M trails by 0.5%, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 trails by 0.9%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is 1.5% behind. The only rival ahead is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, which leads by 1.3%. So while the R7 M460 is not an outlier in its own weight class, the weight class itself is far below the GTX 1650's.

The single head-to-head result is the only benchmark where both parts appear. The GTX 1650 wins that test outright, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons. The R7 M460 has no recorded wins against the GTX 1650 in any shared test. The magnitude of the OpenCL delta, 348.1%, is the headline number. It suggests that any compute-oriented workload, whether OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or general GPU compute, will favor the NVIDIA part by an enormous margin. For gaming and graphics workloads, the database does not provide a direct shared test, but the compute result is a strong proxy for raw shader throughput, and the underlying hardware specifications reinforce that gap.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and different process nodes. The GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The die contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² package, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The R7 M460 uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm node. Its die is smaller at 125 mm², and it packs only 1,550 million transistors, resulting in a density of 12.4M per mm². The process node difference alone, 12 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the efficiency and performance gap: the GTX 1650 fits more than three times the transistor count into a die that is only 60% larger by area.

The chip identifiers differ as well. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip, while the R7 M460 uses the Meso chip. The GTX 1650 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, with a predecessor in the GeForce 10 series and a successor in the GeForce 20 series. The R7 M460 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation, with a predecessor described as the Solar System and a successor as Polaris Mobile. These generational labels reflect the release timeline: the GTX 1650 was released in April 2019, while the R7 M460 came out in May 2016.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with just 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 3.5x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which directly impacts texture streaming, frame buffer writes, and any memory-bound workload. The GTX 1650's memory clock is 2001 MHz, translating to 8 Gbps effective, while the R7 M460 runs at 1125 MHz, or 4.5 Gbps effective.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R7 M460 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Pixel throughput is 53.28 GPixel/s for the GTX 1650 versus 8.192 GPixel/s for the R7 M460. Texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 2.984 TFLOPS (FP32) for the NVIDIA part, while the AMD part manages 786.4 GFLOPS, a 3.8x gap. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 M460's FP16 is identical to its FP32 at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), indicating no dedicated half-rate path.

Neither part has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The API support differs slightly: the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference, 12_1 versus 12_0, is minor but can affect certain optional rendering features.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear choice for any user prioritizing compute performance, memory bandwidth, or raw shader throughput. The 348.1% lead in OpenCL is the single largest delta in the head-to-head comparison, and the underlying specifications corroborate that result: 3.8x the FP32 throughput, 3.5x the memory bandwidth, and 4x the ROP count. The GTX 1650 also has twice the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger frame buffers.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460, however, is not without its niche. It is a lower-power, smaller-die part, though the database does not record a TDP for it. It is also from an earlier era, which means it may be found in older laptops and pre-built systems. For users with that hardware, the R7 M460 is what it is: a 38th-percentile GPU that trades blows with integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics P750 and low-end discrete parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010. It does not compete with the GTX 1650.

The verdict is unambiguous: if performance is the sole criterion, the GTX 1650 wins every measurable category. If compatibility with an existing system is the constraint, the R7 M460 is the only option in that particular machine, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 1650 in any shared benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon R7 M460 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1485 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1024 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.1 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 384 |

| TMUs | 56 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 53.28 GPixel/s | 8.192 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 93.24 GTexel/s | 24.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.984 TFLOPS | 786.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-04-22 | 2016-05-14 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | Not recorded |

The GTX 1650 also has recorded dimensions (229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width) and display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). The R7 M460 has no recorded dimensions, display outputs, or power connectors. The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card with no power connectors required, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6612. The GTX 1650 is 348.1% faster in that test.

Q: How much more memory bandwidth does the GTX 1650 have?

A: The GTX 1650 has 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 M460 has 36.00 GB/s. That is a 3.5x advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. Neither the GTX 1650 nor the R7 M460 has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, according to the database.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors, while the R7 M460 has 1,550 million. The NVIDIA part has over three times as many.

Q: Which GPU has more VRAM?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 M460 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use the same memory type.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in every category where both parts have recorded data. The single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to the GTX 1650 by 348.1%. The specification comparison shows wins in memory size (4 GB versus 2 GB), memory bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), shading units (896 versus 384), texture units (56 versus 24), ROPs (32 versus 8), pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s), texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (2.984 TFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS). The GTX 1650 also has a newer process node (12 nm versus 28 nm), a higher transistor density (23.5M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm²), a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8), and a higher Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170).

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 has no recorded wins. Its only benchmark score, 6612 in OpenCL, is lower than every score the GTX 1650 records in any test. The GTX 1650's lowest individual benchmark score is 35 in Passmark DirectX 12, but its average benchmark score is 7472, which is still above the R7 M460's sole score. The R7 M460's nearest rivals are all comparable or slightly faster, but none of them approach the GTX 1650's performance tier.

For use-case planning, the data suggests the following: if the workload is compute-heavy, such as OpenCL-based acceleration, the GTX 1650 is the only viable option. If the workload is gaming, the GTX 1650's higher pixel rate and texture rate indicate better frame buffer throughput and texture filtering. If the workload is memory-intensive, the GTX 1650's 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth provide a decisive edge. The R7 M460, with its 64-bit bus and 36.00 GB/s bandwidth, is suited only for light, older, or non-demanding applications. In any direct comparison, the GTX 1650 is the superior part. The only reason to select the R7 M460 is if the system's physical constraints (such as a laptop with a soldered chip) force that choice, but the performance data offers no justification for preferring it on merit.