AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench Vulkan, and the results deliver a clear, if modest, victory for the Radeon RX 460. The RX 460 posts a score of 20198, while the FirePro D500 manages 18533. That translates to an 8.2% advantage for the younger card, a meaningful gap in a single API test. This is not a landslide, but it is a decisive margin that flips the narrative that the professional-grade FirePro would automatically dominate a consumer card.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro D500’s score of 18533 places it within a tight cluster of rivals. It sits just 0.5% behind the Radeon RX 560X (18626) and 0.8% behind the Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18685). Meanwhile, it edges past the Intel Arc A770M (18383) by 0.8% and the RX 460 (18373) by 0.9% — but that latter figure is based on the RX 460’s average score, not its Vulkan result. The head-to-head Vulkan test tells a different story, where the RX 460 pulls ahead by 8.2%. This discrepancy highlights how API-specific performance can diverge sharply from an overall average.

The RX 460’s Vulkan score of 20198 is not just better than the FirePro’s; it also outpaces several of the FirePro’s own nearest rivals. The RX 460’s average of 18373 puts it 0.1% behind the Intel Arc A770M (18383), 1% ahead of the Radeon Pro 5700 (18189), and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159). Yet in Vulkan specifically, the RX 460 reaches 20198, which is a substantial jump over its own average — suggesting that GCN 4.0’s Vulkan driver or hardware path is particularly well-optimized. The FirePro D500, by contrast, scores 18533 in Vulkan, which is nearly identical to its average of 18533, indicating no such API-specific boost.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the Radeon RX 460 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, taking the Vulkan test with a 8.2% lead. This suggests that for modern, API-heavy workloads — Vulkan is used in many contemporary games and compute applications — the RX 460 is the more capable option. Its higher boost clock of 1200 MHz compared to the FirePro’s unspecified boost (only memory clock is listed) likely contributes to this advantage, though the architecture differences play a larger role.

The FirePro D500, however, does not win any benchmark in the dataset — winsA is 0. Its single Geekbench Vulkan score of 18533 is respectable, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, but it falls short in the only direct comparison. That said, the FirePro’s strengths lie elsewhere in its specification sheet: it has more memory (3 GB vs 2 GB), a wider memory bus (384-bit vs 128-bit), and significantly higher memory bandwidth (243.8 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s). For workloads that are bandwidth-bound — such as large dataset processing in compute or certain professional visualization tasks — the FirePro’s hardware profile suggests it would perform better, even if the Vulkan benchmark does not capture that advantage.

The RX 460 counters with a lower power draw (75 W vs 274 W) and a smaller physical footprint (170 mm vs 279 mm), making it a clear winner for compact or power-constrained builds. Its FP16 throughput of 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) also gives it an edge in workloads that leverage half-precision math, whereas the FirePro D500’s FP16 is not listed, implying no such capability is advertised.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro D500 uses GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the Tahiti chip. The RX 460 uses GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with the Baffin chip. This is a generational leap: GCN 4.0 introduced significant improvements in memory compression, shader efficiency, and Vulkan support over GCN 1.0.

The transistor counts reflect the process node difference. The FirePro’s Tahiti packs 4,313 million transistors into a 352 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 460’s Baffin, meanwhile, contains 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, reaching a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser process means the RX 460 achieves similar compute throughput with far fewer resources.

Shading unit counts differ markedly: the FirePro has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having nearly half the shaders, the RX 460’s FP32 performance of 2.150 TFLOPS is almost identical to the FirePro’s 2.227 TFLOPS — a difference of just 3.5%. This confirms the architectural efficiency gains in GCN 4.0. The RX 460 also explicitly lists FP16 support at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1), which the FirePro does not advertise.

API support also diverges. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan version on the RX 460 aligns with its superior Vulkan benchmark performance. The bus interface differs as well: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 — a potential bottleneck for the RX 460 in bandwidth-hungry scenarios, though the memory bandwidth is already half that of the FirePro.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. Memory capacity: 3 GB on the FirePro vs 2 GB on the RX 460. Memory type is GDDR5 for both, but the bus width is 384-bit vs 128-bit, leading to a bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s — the FirePro offers more than double the memory bandwidth. Memory clock is 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) on the FirePro versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the RX 460, though the wider bus compensates for the FirePro’s lower clock.

Clock speeds: the FirePro lists no base or boost clock, only memory clock. The RX 460 lists a base clock of 1090 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. This absence of clock data for the FirePro makes direct frequency comparison impossible, but the RX 460’s boost clock is clearly aggressive for its power class. Pixel rate: 23.20 GPixel/s on the FirePro vs 19.20 GPixel/s on the RX 460. Texture rate: 69.60 GTexel/s vs 67.20 GTexel/s — nearly identical despite the FirePro’s higher TMU count.

Power and physical specs differ drastically. The FirePro has a TDP of 274 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the RX 460 has a TDP of 75 W and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 460 requires no power connectors, while the FirePro’s connectors are unspecified. The FirePro is 279 mm long (11 inches), the RX 460 is 170 mm (6.7 inches). Both are dual-slot. Display outputs: the FirePro offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, while the RX 460 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The FirePro’s SDI output is a professional video feature absent from the RX 460.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins with a score of 20198, beating the AMD FirePro D500’s 18533 by 8.2%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance (FP32)?

A: They are nearly identical. The FirePro D500 delivers 2.227 TFLOPS, while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS — a difference of only 3.5%.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The FirePro D500 has a TDP of 274 W and suggests a 600 W PSU, while the RX 460 has a TDP of 75 W and suggests a 250 W PSU. The RX 460 requires no power connectors.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro D500 has significantly more, at 243.8 GB/s, due to a 384-bit bus. The RX 460 has 112.0 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The RX 460 also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card is more physically compact?

A: The RX 460 is significantly shorter at 170 mm (6.7 inches) versus the FirePro D500’s 279 mm (11 inches). Both are dual-slot cards.

The Verdict

The data points to the Radeon RX 460 as the better choice for Vulkan-centric workloads, where it wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.2%. Its lower power draw (75 W vs 274 W), no power connector requirement, and compact size make it far more accessible for standard desktop builds. Its FP16 support and newer Vulkan API version (1.3 vs 1.2.170) also give it a forward-looking edge.

The FirePro D500, however, remains compelling for specific professional scenarios. Its 3 GB memory capacity and 243.8 GB/s bandwidth — more than double the RX 460’s — suggest it would excel in memory-intensive compute tasks, even if the Vulkan benchmark does not reflect that. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort and SDI output also cater to multi-display or broadcast environments that the RX 460 cannot serve. The FirePro’s higher pixel rate (23.20 GPixel/s vs 19.20 GPixel/s) hints at stronger fill-rate performance for certain rendering paths.

Who should pick which? If the priority is modern API performance, efficiency, and compactness, the RX 460 is the data-backed winner. If the workload demands high memory bandwidth, larger framebuffer, or professional video outputs, the FirePro D500 justifies its existence despite losing the Vulkan test. Both cards sit at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are middle-of-the-pack in the broader market, but the RX 460’s single benchmark win gives it the edge in this head-to-head.