
RadeonT 660M vs GeForce GTX 460

RadeonT 660M
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 460
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The RadeonT 660M is positioned at rank #226 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RadeonT 660M
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RadeonT 660M is significantly newer (2023 vs 2010). The RadeonT 660M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 460 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 460 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the RadeonT 660M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+166.7%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 460 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of RadeonT 660M and GeForce GTX 460

RadeonT 660M
The RadeonT 660M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1900 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,221 points.

GeForce GTX 460
The GeForce GTX 460 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 12 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,275 points. Launch price was $229.
Graphics Performance
The RadeonT 660M scores 2,221 and the GeForce GTX 460 reaches 2,275 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RadeonT 660M is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 460 uses Fermi, both on 6 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (RadeonT 660M) vs 336 (GeForce GTX 460). Raw compute: 1.459 TFLOPS (RadeonT 660M) vs 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 460).
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,221 | 2,275+2% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+14% | 336 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.459 TFLOPS+61% | 0.9072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 448 KB+250% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RadeonT 660M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 460 has 768 MB. The RadeonT 660M offers 166.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (RadeonT 660M) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce GTX 460) — the RadeonT 660M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+167% | 0.75 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,JPEG (RadeonT 660M) vs H.264 (GeForce GTX 460).
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 3.0 | — |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 | — |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,JPEG | H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The RadeonT 660M draws 40W versus the GeForce GTX 460's 160W — a 120% difference. The RadeonT 660M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RadeonT 660M) vs 450W (GeForce GTX 460). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin.
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W-75% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-22% | 450W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 6-pin |
| Perf/Watt | 55.5+291% | 14.2 |
Value Analysis
The RadeonT 660M is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2010).
| Feature | RadeonT 660M | GeForce GTX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $25 |
| Codename | Rembrandt+ | GF104 |
| Release | January 3 2023 | July 12 2010 |
| Ranking | #565 | #652 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












