NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs ATI Radeon HD 5750

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and ATI Radeon HD 5750 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 10 month(s) later
• Around 93% higher core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 700 MHz
• Around 72% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 86 Watt
• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 1536 MB vs 1 GB
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1213 vs 1165
• 4.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4119 vs 980
• Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 11.121 vs 7.384
• Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.105 vs 0.679
• Around 61% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2837 vs 1757
• Around 61% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2837 vs 1757

Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 5750

• Around 57% higher texture fill rate: 25.2 GTexel / s vs 16.1 billion / sec
• 3.8x more pipelines: 720 vs 192
• Around 94% better floating-point performance: 1,008.0 gflops vs 518.4 gflops
• 3.7x more memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 1250 MHz
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 337 vs 255
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 460.31 vs 391.548
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.118 vs 18.548
• Around 62% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 53.346 vs 32.965
• Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2124 vs 1699
• Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2124 vs 1699

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5750

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1213 1165
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	255 337
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4119 980
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.121 7.384
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	391.548 460.31
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.105 0.679
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	18.548 23.118
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	32.965 53.346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1699 2124
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2837 1757
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3349 3347
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1699 2124
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2837 1757
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3349 3347

Compare specifications (specs)