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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 460 768MB

Why buy it

✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 370: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 370 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W reduction.
✅Measures 210mm instead of 221mm, a 11mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 370 across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: older-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 31.7 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Radeon R9 370

2015

Why buy it

✅17.5% more average FPS across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 460 768MB

Radeon R9 370

2015

Why buy it

✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 370: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 370 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W reduction.
✅Measures 210mm instead of 221mm, a 11mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅17.5% more average FPS across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 370 across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: older-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 31.7 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 370 better than GeForce GTX 460 768MB?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 370 averages 17.5% more FPS across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 4,800 vs 4,722 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 370 is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, FSR upscaling.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 460 768MB is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon R9 370 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. Radeon R9 370 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 17.5% more estimated average FPS across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data and a lower G3D Mark (4,722 vs 4,800). It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. GeForce GTX 460 768MB is the more forward-looking alternative, so it still has a real case if you care more about lower power draw (75W vs 110W) and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does GeForce GTX 460 768MB make more sense than Radeon R9 370?

Yes. GeForce GTX 460 768MB is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is lower power draw (75W vs 110W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 370. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 370 currently gives you a lower G3D Mark (4,722 vs 4,800) and 17.5% more estimated average FPS across 19 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

Games Benchmarks

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 9800X3D 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.

GeForce GTX 460 768MB Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 370 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
1080p
low	64 FPS	78 FPS
medium	53 FPS	66 FPS
high	37 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	35 FPS
1440p
low	51 FPS	69 FPS
medium	42 FPS	59 FPS
high	26 FPS	42 FPS
ultra	18 FPS	27 FPS
4K
low	21 FPS	24 FPS
medium	20 FPS	23 FPS
high	12 FPS	15 FPS
ultra	10 FPS	13 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 460 768MB Open Radeon R9 370

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
1080p
low	62 FPS	111 FPS
medium	41 FPS	82 FPS
high	30 FPS	63 FPS
ultra	19 FPS	38 FPS
1440p
low	35 FPS	63 FPS
medium	20 FPS	42 FPS
high	15 FPS	31 FPS
ultra	10 FPS	20 FPS
4K
low	12 FPS	23 FPS
medium	7 FPS	16 FPS
high	6 FPS	12 FPS
ultra	4 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 460 768MB Open Radeon R9 370

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
1080p
low	216 FPS	212 FPS
medium	173 FPS	170 FPS
high	144 FPS	142 FPS
ultra	108 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	159 FPS
medium	130 FPS	127 FPS
high	108 FPS	106 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	80 FPS
4K
low	108 FPS	106 FPS
medium	86 FPS	85 FPS
high	63 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	53 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 460 768MB Open Radeon R9 370

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
1080p
low	122 FPS	136 FPS
medium	99 FPS	109 FPS
high	86 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	78 FPS
1440p
low	92 FPS	99 FPS
medium	74 FPS	82 FPS
high	64 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	52 FPS	55 FPS
4K
low	54 FPS	59 FPS
medium	43 FPS	45 FPS
high	34 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	25 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 460 768MB Open Radeon R9 370

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 460 768MB and Radeon R9 370

GeForce GTX 460 768MB

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in sem dados. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,800 points.

Radeon R9 370

The Radeon R9 370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 975 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 110W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,722 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB scores 4,800 and the Radeon R9 370 reaches 4,722 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is built on Fermi while the Radeon R9 370 uses GCN 1.0. Shader units: 336 (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs 1,280 (Radeon R9 370).

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
G3D Mark Score	4,800+2%	4,722
Architecture	Fermi	GCN 1.0
Shading Units	336	1280+281%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon R9 370 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 370 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 370 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 86.4 GB/s (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs 179 GB/s (Radeon R9 370) — a 107.2% advantage for the Radeon R9 370. Bus width: 192-bit vs 256-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	86.4 GB/s	179 GB/s+107%
Bus Width	192-bit	256-bit+33%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R9 370). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.2	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP4 (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 370). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP4 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,MVC (Radeon R9 370).

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 768MB	Radeon R9 370
Encoder	PureVideo HD VP4	VCE 1.0
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP4	UVD 4.0
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 ASP	H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,MVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 370's 110W — a 37.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (GeForce GTX 460 768MB) vs 450W (Radeon R9 370). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 210mm vs 221mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75.