Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN X
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN X based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details Radeon RX 460 vs GeForce GTX TITAN X |
Released August, 2016
AMD Radeon RX 460
- 1.1 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.6 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, 2015
Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN X
- 1 GHz
- 12 GB GDDR5
7.3 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!The controller is ready for 5K (5120x2880, four times the pixels as QuadHD); the 384-bit wide memory interface holds 12 GB of memory.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 460 vs TITAN X among Desktop 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 | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.3 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN XGPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 1,090 MHz | vs | 1,000 MHz | Around 10% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,200 MHz | vs | 1,089 MHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much lower TDP | 75W | vs | 250W | 3.3x lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Much more memory | 12,288 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 6x more memory | |||
| Much better PassMark score | 10,669 | vs | 4,322 | Around 2.5x better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly better floating-point performance | 6,144 GFLOPS | vs | 2,150.4 GFLOPS | More than 2.8x better floating-point performance | |||
| Much higher pixel rate | 96 GPixel/s | vs | 19.2 GPixel/s | 5x higher pixel rate | |||
| Many more render output processors | 96 | vs | 16 | 80 more render output processors | |||
| Significantly higher texture rate | 192 GTexel/s | vs | 67.2 GTexel/s | More than 2.8x higher texture rate | |||
| Many more shading units | 3,072 | vs | 896 | 2176 more shading units | |||
| Many more texture mapping units | 192 | vs | 56 | 136 more texture mapping units | |||
| Much higher battlefield 4 framerate | 147 | vs | 38.6 | More than 3.8x higher battlefield 4 framerate | |||
| Significantly better face detection score | 132.45 mPixels/s | vs | 55.25 mPixels/s | Around 2.5x better face detection score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark direct compute score | 6,279 | vs | 2,488 | More than 2.5x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Better T-Rex score | 8,023.14 | vs | 3,347.8 | Around 2.5x better T-Rex score | |||
| Wider memory bus | 384 bit | vs | 128 bit | 3x wider memory bus | |||
Report a correction
