AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon Pro 460 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 780M and AMD Radeon Pro 460 occupy the same percentile rank among all GPUs (61st), yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—17588 for the 780M and 17509 for the Pro 460, a difference of only 0.5%. This near-parity in aggregate scoring masks profound architectural and workload-specific divergences, as the head-to-head data reveals swings of 21.7% and 100.3% depending on the API tested. The 780M achieves this with a 15 W TDP and system-shared memory, while the Pro 460 uses 35 W and dedicated 4 GB GDDR5. The data suggests these are not interchangeable parts; they are solutions tuned for different eras and priorities.

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The AMD Radeon 780M is the clear choice for any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs or compute interfaces. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18602 against the Pro 460’s 15284, a 21.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 33683 versus 16816, a 100.3% lead—the 780M more than doubles the Pro 460’s score. If your applications use Vulkan, the decision is not close.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460, however, holds one unique data point the 780M lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 20426. The 780M has no Metal benchmark listed in the data, meaning for Metal-specific workloads, the Pro 460 is the only one of the two with a measured result. For users locked into Apple’s Metal ecosystem, the Pro 460’s 20426 score is the only available reference, even if its OpenCL and Vulkan numbers trail.

The 780M also wins on efficiency per the TDP figures: 15 W versus 35 W. The 780M delivers higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores while drawing less than half the power envelope. The Pro 460’s only counterarguments are its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth (versus system-dependent bandwidth for the 780M) and its Metal benchmark result.

For new system designs targeting Vulkan or OpenCL, the 780M is the data-backed pick. For legacy Mac environments requiring Metal support and dedicated VRAM, the Pro 460 remains relevant despite being end-of-life.

Architecture Differences — node, cores, cache, features that differ

The 780M is built on TSMC’s 4 nm process with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The Pro 460 uses GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4M per mm². The 780M’s density is roughly 5.8 times higher, a direct consequence of the newer process.

The 780M is a Phoenix chip from the Navi III IGP generation, using RDNA 3.0 architecture. The Pro 460 is a Baffin chip from the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation, using GCN 4.0. The 780M packs 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 460 has more shading units (1024) and more TMUs (64) but fewer ROPs (16) and no ray tracing cores at all.

Clock behavior further separates them. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost of 2900 MHz—a 262.5% boost range. The Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost, a modest 6.7% increase. Memory configurations differ fundamentally: the 780M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s fixed bandwidth.

API support shows the generational gap. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 460 caps at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 780M also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 460 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. The 780M is marked Active, the Pro 460 is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17588, which is 0.5% higher than the Pro 460’s 17509. Both sit at the 61st percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How much faster is the 780M in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the 780M scores 33683 versus the Pro 460’s 16816, a delta of 100.3%. This means the 780M achieves more than double the Pro 460’s Vulkan performance.

Q: Does the Pro 460 have any benchmark win against the 780M?

A: In the head-to-head data provided, the Pro 460 wins zero tests. The 780M wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. However, the Pro 460 has a Geekbench Metal score of 20426, a test the 780M does not have an entry for.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The 780M has a TDP of 15 W, while the Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W. The 780M delivers higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores while using less than half the power budget.

Q: Which GPU has dedicated memory?

A: The Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses system-shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, which is 33% more than the 780M’s 768. Despite this, the 780M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, indicating higher per-shader efficiency from the RDNA 3.0 architecture.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The 780M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Pro 460 uses 14 nm from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 25,390 million versus 3,000 million, and die sizes are 178 mm² versus 123 mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply: the 780M has an 800 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost, while the Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. Memory is system-shared on the 780M with system-dependent bandwidth; the Pro 460 has 4 GB GDDR5 at 81.28 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Compute resources differ: the 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and no RT cores. Pixel rates are 92.80 GPixel/s for the 780M versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Pro 460. Texture rates are 139.2 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 8.909 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS.

TDP is 15 W for the 780M and 35 W for the Pro 460. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 and PCIe 3.0 x8, respectively. API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate versus DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Production status is Active versus End-of-life, with release dates of 2024-01-30 versus 2016-10-29.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two tests, and the 780M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 780M scores 18602 against the Pro 460’s 15284, a 21.7% advantage. This is a substantial lead, indicating the 780M’s compute throughput under OpenCL is significantly higher despite the Pro 460’s larger shading unit count (1024 versus 768).

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a far more extreme result. The 780M scores 33683, while the Pro 460 scores 16816—a delta of 100.3%. The 780M’s Vulkan score is more than double the Pro 460’s. This is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison and reflects the architectural leap from GCN 4.0 to RDNA 3.0.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the 780M also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480, a test the Pro 460 does not have an entry for. The Pro 460’s lone exclusive benchmark is Geekbench Metal at 20426, which the 780M lacks. These exclusive tests prevent a fully symmetric comparison, but the two shared tests decisively favor the 780M.

The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data reinforce the closeness of these two GPUs. The 780M is listed as -0.5% relative to the Pro 460 (meaning the 780M is 0.5% faster), and the Pro 460 is listed as 0.5% relative to the 780M. Both also appear near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, with the 780M at -0.3% and the Pro 460 at -0.7% relative to that card.

Where Each One Wins

The 780M wins decisively in every shared benchmark category. Its 21.7% OpenCL lead and 100.3% Vulkan lead make it the superior choice for any application using those APIs. The 780M’s 8.909 TFLOPS FP32 performance, compared to the Pro 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS, explains this dominance—the 780M has roughly 4.8 times the raw floating-point throughput.

The 780M also wins on efficiency metrics. Its 15 W TDP versus the Pro 460’s 35 W means it delivers higher scores while consuming less than half the power. The 780M’s higher pixel rate (92.80 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s) and texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s) further cement its advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads.

The Pro 460’s wins are narrower and more situational. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed memory pool, unlike the 780M’s system-dependent shared memory. For scenarios where system memory bandwidth is constrained or where dedicated VRAM is required, the Pro 460 has a structural advantage. Its Metal score of 20426 is the only Metal data point in the comparison, making it the sole option for Metal-specific applications.

The Pro 460 also has more shading units (1024 versus 768) and more TMUs (64 versus 48), but these hardware advantages do not translate into benchmark wins—the 780M’s higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the deficit. The 780M’s 12 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing capability that the Pro 460 entirely lacks.

For modern workloads using Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the 780M is the only choice based on data. For legacy Metal environments or scenarios requiring dedicated GDDR5 with fixed bandwidth, the Pro 460 remains the sole option with a measured score. The 780M’s Active production status versus the Pro 460’s End-of-life status further suggests the 780M is the forward-looking pick.