Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details Radeon RX 460 vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti |
Released August, 2016
AMD Radeon RX 460
- 1.1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
7 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Aug, 2016)Performance (overclocking, power)80%Quality (build, design, cooling)80%General Features (display outputs, etc)80%Bundle, Packaging & Software80%Value for Money90% Overall TweakTown Rating82% The Bottom Line: SAPPHIRE's new Nitro Radeon RX 460 4GB is priced at just $139, nailing the 1080p gaming scene.
VS
Released March, 2017
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
- 1.5 GHz
- 11 GB GDDR5
8.4 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Jun, 2017)For those with a 21:9 aspect display and native 3440x1440 resolution, in our testing the AORUS GTX 1080 Ti 11G can handle 80-100FPS without a problem, which is perfect for the 100Hz UltraWide gaming monitors on the market.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 460 vs 1080 Ti among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 8.4 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 TiGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,750 MHz | vs | 1,376 MHz | More than 25% higher memory clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much lower TDP | 75W | vs | 220W | 2.9x lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Much better PassMark score | 13,298 | vs | 4,330 | More than 3x better PassMark score | |||
| Much more memory | 11,264 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 5.5x more memory | |||
| Much better floating-point performance | 10,609 GFLOPS | vs | 2,150.4 GFLOPS | Around 5x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,480 MHz | vs | 1,090 MHz | More than 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Much higher pixel rate | 130.2 GPixel/s | vs | 19.2 GPixel/s | More than 6.8x higher pixel rate | |||
| Much higher texture rate | 312.6 GTexel/s | vs | 67.2 GTexel/s | Around 4.8x higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 11,008 MHz | vs | 7,000 MHz | More than 55% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Many more render output processors | 88 | vs | 16 | 72 more render output processors | |||
| Many more shading units | 3,584 | vs | 896 | 2688 more shading units | |||
| Many more texture mapping units | 224 | vs | 56 | 168 more texture mapping units | |||
| Much better cloud gate factor score | 27.05 | vs | 16.35 | More than 65% better cloud gate factor score | |||
| Much better PassMark direct compute score | 9,488 | vs | 2,436 | Around 4x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Significantly better face detection score | 168.04 mPixels/s | vs | 55.37 mPixels/s | More than 3x better face detection score | |||
| Significantly better T-Rex score | 3,358.98 | vs | 1,742.38 | Around 95% better T-Rex score | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,582 MHz | vs | 1,200 MHz | More than 30% higher turbo clock speed | |||
Report a correction
