AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database pits the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 against the AMD Radeon RX 460 across two compute-oriented tests, and the results are not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5050 scores 90,334 points against the RX 460's 17,855, a delta of 405.9% in favor of the newer card. That is more than a fivefold advantage in raw compute throughput, a gap that reflects the generational chasm between the two products rather than a subtle architectural refinement.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The RTX 5050 records 89,381 points, while the RX 460 manages 20,198, giving the NVIDIA part a 342.5% lead. Both tests are unambiguous wins for the RTX 5050, and the database shows 2 wins for the NVIDIA card and 0 for the AMD card. There is no single metric in the head-to-head set where the RX 460 comes out ahead, and the smallest deficit it faces is still more than three times its own score.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the RTX 5050 posts an average score of 21,035 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21,153, a 0.6% difference, which puts the RTX 5050 essentially at parity with that part. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M sits 1% higher at 21,237, while the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is 1.6% ahead at 21,379. On the other side, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT trails by 1.6% at 20,713. These are tight margins, indicating that the RTX 5050's average performance clusters closely with a group of mid-range and mobile parts from both vendors.

The RX 460, by contrast, averages 18,373 points across its recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 62nd percentile. Its closest competitor is the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383, a 0.1% gap, followed by the AMD FirePro D500 at 18,533 (0.9% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18,189 (1% lower). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile sits 1.2% behind at 18,159. The RX 460's average is therefore about 12.6% lower than the RTX 5050's, a meaningful but far less dramatic difference than the head-to-head compute tests suggest, because the RX 460's average includes a Geekbench Metal score of 17,065, which has no counterpart in the RTX 5050's result set.

Within the RTX 5050's individual benchmark suite, the strongest result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 90,334, which is its highest recorded number and far above its own average. The Geekbench Vulkan result of 89,381 is nearly as strong. The PassMark G3D score of 17,326 and the PassMark G2D score of 1,113 are more modest, while the PassMark GPU Compute score of 9,184 sits in the middle. The DirectX-specific PassMark scores are low in absolute terms, ranging from 66 in DirectX 12 to 186 in DirectX 9, but these are legacy API tests and do not drive the overall average as heavily as the Geekbench results.

For the RX 460, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 20,198 is its best recorded result, followed by OpenCL at 17,855 and Metal at 17,065. All three are within a narrow band, showing that the older GCN architecture delivers consistent, if modest, compute performance across different API frontends. The gap between the two cards in the head-to-head OpenCL test, 405.9%, is the largest single delta in the comparison, and it underscores how far compute throughput has advanced over the nine years separating these products.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 5050 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 5050 scores 90,334 against the RX 460's 17,855, a 405.9% advantage. This is the largest margin in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the RX 460 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the RTX 5050 and 0 for the RX 460 across the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 5050 averages 21,035 points across all recorded tests, placing it in the 66th percentile. The RX 460 averages 18,373 points, placing it in the 62nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The RTX 5050's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21,153, just 0.6% higher. The RX 460's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383, a 0.1% gap.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5050 has 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 460 has 112.0 GB/s with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, and it explains nearly every performance difference in the data. The RTX 5050 is built on the GB207 chip using Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference alone, 5 nm versus 14 nm, accounts for a substantial portion of the efficiency and density gap between the two.

Transistor counts reinforce the chasm. The RTX 5050 packs 16,900 million transistors into a 149 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 113.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 460 integrates 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. In absolute terms, the RTX 5050 has more than five times the transistor count, and its density is over four times higher. This is a direct consequence of the manufacturing process and architecture generation gap.

The compute resources differ by a similar order of magnitude. The RTX 5050 has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also brings dedicated hardware that the AMD part lacks entirely: 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The RX 460 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, reflecting its 2016-era GCN design that predates both of those feature sets.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The RTX 5050 runs at a base clock of 2317 MHz and a boost clock of 2572 MHz. The RX 460 operates at 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The combination of more shaders and roughly double the clock speed produces a massive throughput difference: the RTX 5050 delivers 13.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS. Both cards run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the same 13.17 versus 2.150 TFLOPS applies to half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, for 112.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has four times the memory capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth. Rasterization and texture rates follow the same pattern: the RTX 5050 achieves 82.30 GPixel/s and 205.8 GTexel/s, while the RX 460 manages 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s.

The bus interface is another differentiator. The RTX 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The newer standard offers significantly more bandwidth for data transfers, though the practical impact depends on workload. The API support also reflects the generational gap: the RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, while the RX 460 uses Baffin with GCN 4.0. The process node is 5 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 16,900 million versus 3,000 million, and die size is 149 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 113.4 million per mm² versus 24.4 million per mm².

Clock speeds: the RTX 5050 has a base of 2317 MHz and boost of 2572 MHz, while the RX 460 has 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 8 GB of GDDR6 versus 2 GB of GDDR5, with bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s. The bus width is 128 bit for both, but the memory type and speed make the difference.

Compute resources: 2,560 shading units versus 896, 80 TMUs versus 56, 32 ROPs versus 16. The RTX 5050 has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores; the RX 460 has none. Pixel rate is 82.30 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 205.8 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are both 13.17 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics: the RTX 5050 has a TDP of 130 W with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 460 has a TDP of 75 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both are dual-slot cards. The RTX 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the RTX 5050 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the RX 460 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 460 has a recorded length of 170 mm (6.7 inches); the RTX 5050 has no recorded dimensions.

Production status and release timing also differ. The RTX 5050 is Active and was released on 2025-06-30, with a predecessor in the GeForce 40 series and a successor in the GeForce 60 series. The RX 460 is End-of-life, released on 2016-08-07, with a predecessor in the Pirate Islands generation and a successor in Polaris.

The Verdict

The data points to an overwhelming choice for most use cases: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 405.9% and 342.5%, carries 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, supports ray tracing and tensor cores where the RX 460 has none, and delivers 13.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 2.150 TFLOPS. Its average benchmark score of 21,035 places it in the 66th percentile, while the RX 460 sits at 18,373 in the 62nd percentile. Anyone choosing between these two for modern gaming or compute workloads should take the RTX 5050 without hesitation.

The RX 460 retains a narrow niche. Its 75 W TDP with no external power connectors makes it suitable for systems with minimal power delivery, and its 170 mm length allows it to fit into compact cases. The database shows its performance is still competitive with parts like the Intel Arc A770M and AMD FirePro D500, but those are older or lower-tier products. For legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 workloads, the RX 460's PassMark scores of 186 and 103 (respectively) are not directly comparable to the RTX 5050's scores in those same tests, but the RTX 5050 records 150 in DirectX 11 and 66 in DirectX 12, showing that even in API-specific tests, the newer card is not universally dominant in every single metric.

The RTX 5050's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, AMD Radeon HD 8970M, AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile, all within 1.6% of its average score. This suggests that while the RTX 5050 is far ahead of the RX 460, it is not at the top of the overall GPU hierarchy. The RX 460's rival cluster, including the Intel Arc A770M and AMD Radeon Pro 5700, occupies a lower performance tier entirely.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, modern API support, and future-proofing, the RTX 5050 is the clear selection. For users constrained by power delivery or physical space, the RX 460 remains a functional option, but the benchmark data shows it trails the RTX 5050 by every meaningful margin. The verdict from the recorded numbers is unambiguous: the RTX 5050 is the superior GPU in this comparison.