AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins the only directly comparable test, and it wins by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38,586, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743. This represents a 341.3% advantage for the AMD part, a gap so large that it places the two products in entirely different performance tiers.

Context from the database's average benchmark scores reinforces this separation. The RX 6500M holds an average benchmark score of 10,362, which places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, averages 8,743 and sits at the 44th percentile. While both cards sit near the middle of the database distribution, the RX 6500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (average score 10,400, a 0.4% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, 1.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582, 2.1% higher). The GTX 460 v2's nearest rivals cluster around the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, 0% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 0.7% lower). The RX 6500M's average is roughly 18.5% higher than the GTX 460 v2's average, a meaningful gap that shows up across the broader database, not just in the single head-to-head test.

The RX 6500M also shows a much wider benchmark profile in the database. It has recorded scores in Geekbench Vulkan (43,837), Passmark DirectX 10 (52), DirectX 11 (70), DirectX 12 (34), DirectX 9 (92), G2D (385), G3D (7,531), and GPU compute (2,669). The GTX 460 v2 only has a single Geekbench OpenCL entry. This disparity in available measurements is itself informative: the newer AMD part has been exercised across modern API workloads, while the older NVIDIA card has a much narrower recorded history. The RX 6500M's Passmark G3D score of 7,531 and GPU compute score of 2,669 indicate that its strengths extend beyond compute-oriented OpenCL workloads into rasterization and general graphics tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and profound. The RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference alone, 6 nm versus 40 nm, explains much of the efficiency and density disparity. The RX 6500M packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The GTX 460 v2 contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, for a density of just 5.9 million per mm². The AMD chip achieves roughly 8.5 times the transistor density of the NVIDIA chip.

The compute configuration differs accordingly. The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RX 6500M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature class entirely absent from the Fermi-based GTX 460 v2. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 6500M adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 460 v2 has no recorded Vulkan capability.

Memory architecture shows a clear philosophical divergence. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 uses 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 96.19 GB/s. The AMD part has more capacity and higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus, a signal of the efficiency of modern GDDR6 signaling at 18 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA card's memory runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

The power and physical profiles could not be more different. The RX 6500M is rated at 50 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP-class slot width. The GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, suggests a 450 W power supply, and is a dual-slot card measuring 210 mm (8.3 inches) in length. The RX 6500M connects via PCIe 4.0 x4, while the GTX 460 v2 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The RX 6500M's display outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile nature, whereas the GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 341.3%, holds a higher average benchmark score, and offers a dramatically more modern feature set. The GTX 460 v2 cannot compete on raw compute, memory bandwidth, or API support.

For users whose workloads involve OpenCL compute, the RX 6500M delivers more than four times the performance of the GTX 460 v2 in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test. For users who need modern API features such as ray tracing, Vulkan, or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the RX 6500M is the only viable option. The GTX 460 v2 predates all of these technologies.

The power efficiency story also favors the AMD part. The RX 6500M delivers its performance at 50 W, compared to 160 W for the GTX 460 v2. That is a 110 W difference, meaning the AMD card offers vastly higher performance per watt. The GTX 460 v2's dual-slot cooler and 450 W suggested power supply are relics of a less efficient era.

There is one respect in which the GTX 460 v2 retains a niche advantage: its display output configuration is fixed and desktop-oriented, with dual DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in for legacy desktop systems. The RX 6500M relies on portable-device-dependent outputs, which suits laptops but complicates standalone desktop use. Still, that is a narrow practical edge against a 341.3% performance deficit.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. Process node: 6 nm for the RX 6500M, 40 nm for the GTX 460 v2. Transistor count: 5,400 million versus 1,950 million. Die size: 107 mm² versus 332 mm². Transistor density: 50.5M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm². Shading units: 1,024 versus 336. TMUs: 64 versus 56. ROPs: 32 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: 16 versus none. Pixel rate: 76.80 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 153.6 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 4.915 TFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS. FP16: 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 6500M, none recorded for the GTX 460 v2. Memory size: 4 GB versus 1,024 MB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 64 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s. TDP: 50 W versus 160 W. Power connectors: none versus 2x 6-pin. Suggested PSU: none versus 450 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan: 1.4 versus none. Release dates: January 2022 for the RX 6500M, September 2011 for the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 460 v2 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the RX 6500M has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 341.3% higher than the GTX 460 v2's 8,743.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 460 v2 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6500M includes 16.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6500M delivers 144.0 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 interface, while the GTX 460 v2 provides 96.19 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR5 interface.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RX 6500M is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors, while the GTX 460 v2 is rated at 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 v2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Q: What are their release dates?

A: The RX 6500M was released in January 2022, and the GTX 460 v2 was released in September 2011.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins on every measurable performance axis. It is 341.3% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, has a higher average benchmark score (10,362 versus 8,743), and sits at a higher percentile of all GPUs (48th versus 44th). It wins on memory capacity (4 GB versus 1,024 MB), memory bandwidth (144.0 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s), pixel rate (76.80 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s), texture rate (153.6 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s), FP32 throughput (4.915 TFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS), and power efficiency (50 W versus 160 W). It is the only card of the two with ray tracing cores, Vulkan support, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and FP16 capability.

The GTX 460 v2's advantages are limited to form factor and interface legacy. It is a dual-slot desktop card with fixed display outputs (2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI), a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and a 210 mm length that fits standard desktop chassis. It also has a wider memory bus at 192 bit, though that does not translate into higher bandwidth. For a desktop system built around older PCIe slots and legacy DVI monitors, the GTX 460 v2 is the more straightforward physical fit. For any workload that stresses compute, memory, or modern graphics APIs, the RX 6500M is the clear choice. The data offers no scenario in which the GTX 460 v2 outperforms the RX 6500M in recorded benchmarks.