FireStream 9250 vs GeForce GTX 460 SE
In this comparison between FireStream 9250 and GeForce GTX 460 SE you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people FireStream 9250 will be the best choice, for others GeForce GTX 460 SE will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
FireStream 9250
GeForce GTX 460 SE
Main Specs
| FireStream 9250 | GeForce GTX 460 SE | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 6-pin & 6-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
- Both graphics cards have the same power consumption of 150 Watt.
- Both video cards are using PCIe 2.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
- FireStream 9250 and GeForce GTX 460 SE have maximum RAM of 1 GB.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- FireStream 9250 is build with TeraScale architecture, and GeForce GTX 460 SE - with Fermi.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 460 SE is 675 MHz higher, than FireStream 9250.
- FireStream 9250 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and GeForce GTX 460 SE - by 40 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FireStream 9250 is 286 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 460 SE.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 9−10 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 5−6 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 140% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 16−18 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Battlefield 5 is 111% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 45−50 |
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | − |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 10% more, than GeForce GTX 460 SE. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 160−170 |
| medium / 768p | 95−100 | 130−140 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 65−70 |
| QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 27−30 |
| high / 768p | 70−75 | 100−110 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 36% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 55−60 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 24−27 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9250 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 18% more, than GeForce GTX 460 SE. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 45−50 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Dota 2 is 34% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−12 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−11 |
| 4K / 2160p | 1−2 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 12−14 | 24−27 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Far Cry 5 is 140% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 10−12 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 3−4 | − |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Fortnite is 61% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 14−16 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 35−40 |
| medium / 1080p | 10−11 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Forza Horizon 4 is 100% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 65−70 |
| medium / 768p | − | 55−60 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 8−9 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | 40−45 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Grand Theft Auto V is 47% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 2−3 | 6−7 |
| ultra / 1080p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 7−8 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Metro Exodus is 175% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 100−110 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 85−90 | 90−95 |
| 4K / 2160p | 75−80 | − |
| medium / 1080p | − | 95−100 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Minecraft is 12% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 20−22 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 41% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 8−9 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | − |
| low / 720p | 7−8 | 18−20 |
| medium / 1080p | 7−8 | 12−14 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 116% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 16−18 | 35−40 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 21−24 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 8−9 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 7−8 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 112% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 40−45 | 50−55 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 24−27 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 460 SE in World of Tanks is 23% more, than FireStream 9250. | ||
Full Specs
| FireStream 9250 | GeForce GTX 460 SE | |
| Architecture | TeraScale | Fermi |
| Code name | RV770 | GF104 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 | 15 November 2010 |
| Pipelines | 800 | 288 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Transistor count | 956 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 31.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | 748.8 gflops |
| Length | 8.25" (210 mm) (21 cm) | |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1986 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | |
| CUDA cores | 288 | |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| SLI options | + | |
| Multi monitor support | + | |
| HDMI | + | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 48 Mh/s | |
| Number of display connectors | 2 | |