AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. The AMD part scores 8851 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 manages 7925 points. That is a delta of 11.7 percent in favor of the AMD card. In raw terms, the R9 M265X is ahead by 926 points.

This result is interesting because the two cards are from very different eras. The GTX 460 launched in 2010, while the R9 M265X arrived in 2014. Despite the four-year gap, the older NVIDIA card is not completely outclassed. The 11.7 percent margin is meaningful, but it is not a blowout. The data suggests that the GTX 460 was a strong performer in its day, and it remains competitive against a much newer mobile-oriented GPU.

Looking at the wider benchmark landscape, the R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, scores 8863, which is just 0.1 percent higher. The Radeon 550X is 0.8 percent faster with a score of 8918. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746, which is 1.2 percent lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8743, also 1.2 percent lower. So the R9 M265X is essentially in a tight cluster of GPUs, all within a couple of points of each other.

The GTX 460, by contrast, sits at the 41st percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, which scores 7906 and is 0.2 percent slower. The Quadro P5000 scores 8039, which is 1.4 percent faster, and the GeForce GTX 880M scores 8040, also 1.4 percent faster. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti scores 8053, 1.6 percent faster. The GTX 460 is the low point in its immediate peer group, but the gaps are small.

The head-to-head data shows a single win for the AMD card and no wins for the NVIDIA card. That is a clean sweep, albeit a narrow one. The 11.7 percent lead in OpenCL is the only measured comparison, so the verdict rests entirely on that one workload. In a compute-oriented test like Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD architecture appears to have an edge. The R9 M265X has 640 shading units, while the GTX 460 has 336, so the AMD card has nearly double the shader count. That likely explains the advantage in this particular benchmark.

However, the GTX 460 fights back in other specifications. It has more texture units, 56 versus 40, and more ROPs, 24 versus 16. It also has a wider memory bus, 192 bit versus 128 bit, and higher memory bandwidth, 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card's pixel rate is 9.450 GPixel/s, while the AMD card is 10.00 GPixel/s, a slight AMD lead. The texture rate favors NVIDIA, 37.80 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTX 460 scores 907.2 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M265X. So in raw theoretical throughput, the NVIDIA card is actually ahead in several categories, yet it loses the OpenCL test. That suggests the AMD architecture is more efficient at converting its resources into actual compute performance in this workload.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8851, versus 7925 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, a delta of 11.7 percent.

Q: How does the AMD R9 M265X compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R9 M265X is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, which is 0.1 percent faster, and the AMD Radeon 550X, which is 0.8 percent faster. It is 1.2 percent faster than both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GTX 460 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 460 is 0.2 percent faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, but it is 1.4 percent slower than both the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, and 1.6 percent slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The AMD R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192 bit bus, with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node and die size for each GPU?

A: The AMD R9 M265X is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 123 mm². The NVIDIA GTX 460 is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 332 mm².

Q: What is the release date for each card?

A: The AMD R9 M265X was released on 2014-03-20, while the NVIDIA GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11.

The Verdict

The data points to a narrow but consistent win for the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. In the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD card leads by 11.7 percent. That is a meaningful margin, and it places the R9 M265X in a slightly higher percentile bracket, 44th versus 41st for the GTX 460. For a user prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the AMD card is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

That said, the GTX 460 has advantages that the benchmark does not capture. It has a higher FP32 throughput, 907.2 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS, and significantly more texture fill rate, 37.80 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. It also has a wider memory bus and higher bandwidth. These specs matter for certain workloads, particularly texture-heavy rendering. The GTX 460 also has a higher TDP of 160 W, which suggests it was designed for desktop performance rather than mobile efficiency.

The R9 M265X, by contrast, is a mobile part with a 28 nm process and a smaller die, 123 mm² versus 332 mm². It also has more shading units, 640 versus 336, and a higher pixel rate, 10.00 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 does not list Vulkan support. It also has a newer DirectX version, 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0).

Who should pick which? The data suggests that the R9 M265X is the better choice for compute tasks and for users who want a more modern feature set. It wins the only benchmark recorded, and it offers a newer API stack. The GTX 460 retains appeal for users who value raw texture throughput and memory bandwidth, but the benchmark result does not favor it. The AMD card is the winner in the database's measurements, and that is the final word.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 |

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

| Shading Units | 640 | 336 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 9.450 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 37.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 800.0 GFLOPS | 907.2 GFLOPS |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 768 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| TDP | Not specified | 160 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Length | Not specified | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 199 USD |

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Venus chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors packed into a 123 mm² die. That gives a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The card belongs to the Gem System generation, specifically the R9 M200 series. Its predecessor is listed as Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The transistor density is 5.9M per mm², which is roughly half that of the AMD chip. The GTX 460 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation. Its predecessor is the GeForce 200 series, and its successor is the GeForce 500 series.

The process node difference is significant. The 28 nm node on the AMD card is two generations ahead of the 40 nm node on the NVIDIA card. That allows the R9 M265X to fit more transistors per square millimeter, 12.2M versus 5.9M, despite having fewer total transistors, 1,500 million versus 1,950 million. The die size difference is stark: 123 mm² versus 332 mm². The AMD chip is less than half the physical size of the NVIDIA chip, yet it delivers comparable compute performance.

In terms of core configuration, the AMD card has 640 shading units, which is nearly double the 336 on the GTX 460. However, the NVIDIA card has more texture units, 56 versus 40, and more ROPs, 24 versus 16. The memory subsystems also differ. The AMD card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, while the NVIDIA card uses 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus. The NVIDIA card has higher memory bandwidth, 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, and a higher memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the AMD card.

The clock speeds are not directly comparable because the GTX 460 does not list a base or boost clock. The AMD card runs at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. The memory clock for the AMD card is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA card runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective. The API support differs as well. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support is not listed.

The physical characteristics also differ. The GTX 460 is a dual-slot card with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 450 W. It has a TDP of 160 W. The R9 M265X does not list a TDP, slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile design. The GTX 460 is 210 mm long (8.3 inches) and has display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The AMD card does not list dimensions or display outputs.

The NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, but the AMD card has no recorded launch price. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in production status. The release dates are far apart: the GTX 460 came out on 2010-07-11, while the R9 M265X arrived on 2014-03-20. The architectural differences are substantial, but the benchmark data shows that the newer, smaller AMD chip manages to outperform the older, larger NVIDIA chip in the one test recorded.