AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and AMD Radeon R7 M460 represent two very different corners of the GPU market, separated by nearly two years and an enormous gap in physical size and compute resources. While the GTX 970 was designed as a high-end desktop part for enthusiast gaming, the R7 M460 is a modest mobile chip intended for thin-and-light laptops. The benchmark data confirms a lopsided contest, but the specifics of how and why the GTX 970 dominates reveal interesting architectural and design choices. This analysis explores the data, focusing on the significant performance delta and the underlying hardware differences that drive it.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 than the AMD Radeon R7 M460 in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the sole common benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 scored 29,982 points, while the R7 M460 scored 6,612 points. This results in a delta of 353.4%, meaning the GTX 970 is nearly four and a half times faster.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 970 has a percentile rank of 39, while the R7 M460 sits just below at 38. Despite the massive performance gap in their direct comparison, their overall percentile rankings are remarkably close, suggesting the GTX 970's score is dragged down by a wide field of much faster modern GPUs.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the GTX 970 based on average benchmark score?

A: The data places the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (avg score 7,170) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (avg score 7,171) as its nearest competitors, with deltas of -0.2%. AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) are also nearby, all within a 0.9% delta.

Q: What is the closest rival to the R7 M460, and how does it compare?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 7730M is the closest rival with an average score of 6,581, which is 0.5% lower than the R7 M460's score of 6,612. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is slightly further behind at 1.5% lower, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 0.9% lower.

Q: What is the difference in peak FP32 (single-precision) performance between the two?

A: The GTX 970 delivers 3.920 TFLOPS, while the R7 M460 delivers 786.4 GFLOPS. This means the GTX 970 has roughly five times the raw floating-point throughput of the R7 M460.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same level of DirectX?

A: No. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). This indicates a slight feature-level advantage for the NVIDIA part in the DirectX 12 API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different scales and design philosophies. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex die measuring 398 mm² and containing 5,200 million transistors. In contrast, the R7 M460 uses the Meso chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but it is a much smaller die at 125 mm² with only 1,550 million transistors. The transistor density is similar (13.1M / mm² for NVIDIA vs 12.4M / mm² for AMD), but the sheer scale of the GTX 970's chip provides a massive resource advantage.

The execution resources are dramatically different. The GTX 970 packs 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 56 render output units (ROPs). The R7 M460, by comparison, has just 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates directly to peak throughput: the GTX 970's 3.920 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 122.5 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the R7 M460's 786.4 GFLOPS and 24.58 GTexel/s. The pixel rate is also starkly different, with the GTX 970 achieving 65.97 GPixel/s versus the R7 M460's 8.192 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture further widens the gap. The GTX 970 features a 256-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective speed of 7 Gbps. The R7 M460 has a 64-bit bus with only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, resulting in just 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 4.5 Gbps effective. This 6x difference in bandwidth is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads. Additionally, the GTX 970 has a base clock of 1050 MHz and a boost of 1178 MHz, while the R7 M460 starts at 730 MHz and boosts to 1024 MHz. The GTX 970 also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170) and has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface compared to the R7 M460's PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture for system builders and buyers. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is the unequivocal performance winner, demonstrating a 353.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its architecture is built for heavy lifting, with roughly 4.3 times the shading units, 4.3 times the TMUs, and 7 times the ROPs of the R7 M460. This is a discrete desktop GPU intended for 1080p and 1440p gaming and general compute tasks where raw throughput matters.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460, on the other hand, occupies a completely different niche. It is a low-power, small-die mobile solution. Based on its specs, it is designed for basic multimedia, light gaming, and power efficiency in laptops. Its 64-bit memory bus and 2 GB of VRAM severely limit its ability to handle modern game textures or large datasets. The choice between the two is not about performance preference but about platform: the GTX 970 is for a desktop system with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and a 300 W recommended PSU, while the R7 M460 is an integrated-style discrete chip for a compact laptop. There is no scenario where the R7 M460 would be chosen for its performance over the GTX 970; it exists to serve a form factor the GTX 970 cannot fit.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the FACT PACK data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | AMD Radeon R7 M460 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Meso |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1050 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1024 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 384 |

| TMUs | 104 | 24 |

| ROPs | 56 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 65.97 GPixel/s | 8.192 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 122.5 GTexel/s | 24.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.920 TFLOPS | 786.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 148 W | N/A |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-18 | 2016-05-14 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark where both GPUs have a score is Geekbench OpenCL. This test measures raw compute performance using the OpenCL API, which is a strong indicator of general-purpose GPU (GPGPU) capabilities. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 scores 29,982 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6,612 points.

This yields a deltaPct of 353.4%, meaning the GTX 970 is 353.4% faster than the R7 M460. To put this in perspective, the R7 M460's score is less than the GTX 970's closest rival in the overall average benchmark. The GTX 970's nearest rivals have average scores around 7,170, which is close to the R7 M460's score of 6,612. This indicates that the R7 M460's absolute performance level is similar to integrated graphics solutions that are near the bottom of the GTX 970's own competitor tier.

This single data point, combined with the spec sheet, suggests that the R7 M460's strengths lie in power efficiency and physical size, not in computational grunt. The 353.4% delta in OpenCL is not a marginal difference; it represents a generational and class-based gulf. The GTX 970's massive memory bandwidth (224.4 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s) and higher shading unit count are the primary drivers of this result. The R7 M460 would struggle with any OpenCL workload that requires significant data movement or parallel processing, such as video rendering, physics simulation, or complex image filters.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970:

• Raw Compute Performance: The GTX 970 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a staggering 353.4%. Its 3.920 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 224.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for demanding compute tasks, modern gaming at high settings, and content creation.
• Memory Capacity and Bandwidth: With 4 GB of VRAM on a 256-bit bus, the GTX 970 can handle larger textures and higher resolutions without stuttering. The R7 M460's 2 GB VRAM and 64-bit bus are a bottleneck for any serious workload.
• Feature Set: The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are more advanced than the R7 M460's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This allows for newer rendering techniques and better long-term driver optimization.
• Desktop Use Case: It is a dual-slot card with a 148 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU, making it a proper desktop component. It is the clear choice for any user who needs consistent, high-level performance.

AMD Radeon R7 M460:

• Physical Footprint: The R7 M460 has no listed dimensions, TDP, or power connectors, which suggests it is a low-profile, mobile-first chip. It wins on the ability to fit into thin laptops where a dual-slot desktop card like the GTX 970 is physically impossible.
• FP16 Capability: The R7 M460 supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (786.4 GFLOPS), whereas the GTX 970 has no listed FP16 performance. This could be a minor advantage for specific machine learning or media applications that utilize half-precision.
• Mobile Integration: With a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and a 2016 release date, it is designed for a specific generation of laptops. It wins in the niche scenario of providing basic discrete graphics performance in a power-constrained environment.
• Proximity to Rivals: The R7 M460's average benchmark score of 6,612 is actually higher than some of its direct rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513). This shows it is competitive within its own low-power mobile class.