AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon Pro 460 Comparison

The AMD FirePro D500 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 represent two distinct approaches to GPU design from the same manufacturer, separated by nearly three years of architectural evolution. The FirePro D500, launched in January 2014, is a workstation-oriented dual-slot card built on the Tahiti chip and GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Radeon Pro 460, released in October 2016, is a mobile-class integrated GPU based on the Baffin chip and GCN 4.0 architecture. The data shows a clear generational divide: the D500 is the raw compute brute, while the Pro 460 is the efficiency-focused modern design.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². In contrast, the Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors in a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 24.4M per mm². The newer fabrication process allows the Pro 460 to nearly double the transistor density while using fewer total transistors.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The FirePro D500 fields 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 460, despite being a smaller chip, still offers 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the D500 has 50% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, but double the ROPs of the Pro 460. The memory subsystems are equally divergent: the D500 uses a 384-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Pro 460 is limited to a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 and 81.28 GB/s. The D500’s bandwidth advantage is roughly 3x, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads.

In terms of API support, the Pro 460 is more modern. The FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan version on the Pro 460 reflects its later release. The Pro 460 also has a notable feature the D500 lacks: FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, offering 1.858 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The D500 only lists FP32 at 2.227 TFLOPS with no FP16 capability specified.

The physical and power profiles could not be more different. The FirePro D500 is a dual-slot card measuring 279 mm (11 inches) in length, with a 274 W TDP and a suggested 600 W power supply. It outputs video through 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI. The Radeon Pro 460, by contrast, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 35 W TDP, no power connectors required, and display outputs that are portable device dependent. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the D500 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one common benchmark exists in the data: Geekbench Vulkan. The FirePro D500 scores 18,533, while the Radeon Pro 460 scores 16,816. This gives the D500 a decisive 10.2% victory in this test. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming, indicating that the architectural advantages of the D500 in raw compute and memory bandwidth translate into a measurable, though not dominant, performance lead in Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the D500’s sole benchmark score of 18,533 places it at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560X (average score 18,626, deltaPct -0.5), the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, deltaPct 0.8), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, deltaPct -0.8), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, deltaPct 0.9). The D500 sits almost exactly in the middle of this group, within a single percentage point of all four rivals. This suggests that while the D500 is competitive with mid-range GPUs from later generations, it does not decisively outperform them despite its workstation pedigree.

The Radeon Pro 460 has a richer benchmark profile. It scores 20,426 in Geekbench Metal, 15,284 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 16,816 in Geekbench Vulkan, averaging 17,509 across all tests. This puts it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468, deltaPct 0.2), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, deltaPct -0.2), the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, deltaPct -0.5), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, deltaPct -0.7). The Pro 460 is within a fraction of a percent of all these cards, indicating it performs on par with a range of desktop and mobile GPUs from different eras. Notably, the Pro 460’s Metal score of 20,426 is its strongest showing, significantly higher than its Vulkan or OpenCL results.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro D500 wins where raw throughput matters. Its 2.227 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 69.60 GTexel/s texture rate, and 23.20 GPixel/s pixel rate are all substantially higher than the Pro 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS, 58.05 GTexel/s, and 14.51 GPixel/s. The D500’s 243.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is a 3x advantage that makes it better suited for workloads that stream large datasets, such as high-resolution rendering, scientific simulation, or multi-display professional visualization. The 384-bit memory bus and 3 GB frame buffer, while smaller in capacity, provide the bandwidth headroom that compute-heavy tasks often require. With 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs, the D500 is clearly designed for multi-monitor professional setups.

The Radeon Pro 460 wins where efficiency and modern features matter. Its 35 W TDP is roughly 8x lower than the D500’s 274 W, making it suitable for compact or mobile systems. The 4 GB memory capacity is larger, which helps in scenarios where capacity trumps bandwidth. The FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is a modern capability that the D500 lacks entirely, benefiting applications that use mixed-precision computing. The Pro 460 also has a newer Vulkan version (1.3 vs 1.2.170) and DirectX 12_0 support, making it more compatible with contemporary software. Its Metal score of 20,426 suggests strong performance in Apple’s ecosystem, which is logical given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation designation.

For users prioritizing raw compute and professional display output, the D500 is the clear choice. For users needing low power consumption, modern API features, or working within Apple’s Metal framework, the Pro 460 is more appropriate. The 10.2% Vulkan win for the D500 is the only direct comparison, but the Pro 460’s higher Metal score indicates it could take the lead in that specific API.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification. The process node is 28 nm for the D500 versus 14 nm for the Pro 460. The D500 has more transistors (4,313 million vs 3,000 million) and a larger die (352 mm² vs 123 mm²), but the Pro 460 has higher transistor density (24.4M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²). The D500 has no base or boost clock listed, while the Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. Memory size is 3 GB vs 4 GB, bus width is 384-bit vs 128-bit, and bandwidth is 243.8 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s.

Compute units differ: 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the D500 versus 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Pro 460. FP32 performance is 2.227 TFLOPS vs 1.858 TFLOPS, and the Pro 460 adds FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS which the D500 does not list. Power consumption is 274 W vs 35 W, and slot width is dual-slot vs IGP. The D500 requires a 600 W PSU suggestion, while the Pro 460 has no such requirement and no power connectors. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 vs x8. Display outputs are 6x mini-DisplayPort + SDI vs portable device dependent. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_0), and Vulkan is 1.2.170 vs 1.3. The D500 has a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Instinct), while the Pro 460 has neither listed. Release dates are January 17, 2014, and October 29, 2016, respectively. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533, which is 10.2% higher than the Radeon Pro 460’s 16,816. This is the only benchmark common to both products.

Q: How does the FirePro D500 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The D500’s average score of 18,533 places it within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626), Intel Arc A770M (18,383), AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685), and AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373). It is slightly behind the 560X and Pro 5700 XT and slightly ahead of the Arc A770M and RX 460.

Q: What is the Radeon Pro 460’s best benchmark result?

A: The Pro 460 scores 20,426 in Geekbench Metal, which is significantly higher than its OpenCL score of 15,284 and its Vulkan score of 16,816. Its average across all three tests is 17,509.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 460 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060?

A: The Pro 460’s average score is 17,509, while the RTX 4060 averages 17,639, giving the RTX 4060 a 0.7% lead. The two cards are effectively within statistical noise of each other.

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 243.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The D500 offers roughly 3x the bandwidth but 1 GB less capacity.

Q: Which GPU supports FP16 compute?

A: Only the Radeon Pro 460 supports FP16, providing 1.858 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The FirePro D500 lists no FP16 capability.