AMD Radeon HD 8970M vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark places the AMD Radeon HD 8970M and the AMD Radeon RX 460 in a clear, if narrow, contest. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the HD 8970M scores 21,237 points against the RX 460's 17,855 points. That is a decisive 18.9% advantage for the older mobile part, a margin that flips the expected narrative for anyone assuming a newer architecture automatically dominates.

Looking at the broader database context, the HD 8970M's OpenCL result sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals bracket it tightly: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 21,153 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 21,379 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 scores 21,035 (1% behind). The HD 8970M effectively trades blows with these much newer parts in compute workloads, which speaks to the raw throughput that GCN 1.0 delivered at its launch.

The RX 460, by contrast, holds a 62nd percentile ranking overall, with an average benchmark score of 18,373 across its three recorded tests. Its OpenCL result of 17,855 is its weakest showing; the Vulkan score of 20,198 is its strongest, and the Metal score of 17,065 sits in between. The RX 460's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383 (0.1% ahead), the AMD FirePro D500 at 18,533 (0.9% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18,189 (1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile at 18,159 (1.2% behind). The RX 460's average of 18,373 places it in a very tight cluster, with no rival more than 1.2% away in either direction.

The head-to-head delta of 18.9% is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial gap in one workload. However, the RX 460 counters with API versatility, as its Vulkan and Metal scores demonstrate capabilities the HD 8970M cannot claim in the same way. The database records only one head-to-head test, so the overall win tally stands at 1-0 in favor of the HD 8970M. That single data point, though, does not tell the whole story, as the architecture breakdown below clarifies.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The HD 8970M uses the Neptune chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip, built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is significant, but the transistor counts tell a curious story: the HD 8970M packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, while the RX 460 fits 3,000 million transistors into a much smaller 123 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm² for Neptune versus 24.4 million per mm² for Baffin, a 85% density improvement for the newer process.

The compute resources differ sharply. The HD 8970M fields 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 460 counters with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the RX 460 achieves comparable throughput thanks to higher clocks: its base clock of 1090 MHz and boost of 1200 MHz dwarf the HD 8970M's 850 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The pixel rate tells the tale: the HD 8970M hits 28.80 GPixel/s versus the RX 460's 19.20 GPixel/s, a 50% advantage for the older card. Texture rate is closer, 72.00 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s, a 7% edge for the HD 8970M.

Memory configurations diverge as well. The HD 8970M carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for the HD 8970M versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the RX 460. The wider bus wins the bandwidth contest despite the slower clock.

Floating-point performance is nearly identical on paper. The HD 8970M delivers 2.304 TFLOPS of FP32, while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS. The RX 460 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.150 TFLOPS), a capability the HD 8970M does not list. API support favors the RX 460: it supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the HD 8970M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Physical and power characteristics differ too. The HD 8970M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP, designed for portable devices with device-dependent display outputs. The RX 460 is a dual-slot card measuring 170 mm (6.7 inches) with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It offers specific display outputs: one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface also differs: the HD 8970M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The HD 8970M wins on raw compute throughput in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, and the architecture data explains why. Its 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB frame buffer provide nearly 37% more bandwidth than the RX 460, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The higher pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s suggests an advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as heavy post-processing or high-resolution rendering. The 80 TMUs versus 56 also give it a lead in texture-heavy workloads, reflected in the 7% texture rate advantage.

The RX 460 wins on efficiency and API modernity. Its 75 W TDP versus 100 W means it draws less power while delivering comparable FP32 throughput. The 14 nm process enables higher clocks, and the Vulkan 1.3 support opens the door to newer graphics APIs that the HD 8970M cannot fully utilize. The RX 460's FP16 capability at 1:1 ratio is a distinct feature, relevant for workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic. The single-slot physical design, no power connectors, and 250 W suggested PSU make it far easier to integrate into a standard desktop build, whereas the MXM form factor of the HD 8970M restricts it to specific laptops.

For gaming, the RX 460's Vulkan score of 20,198 suggests strong performance in Vulkan-based titles, which are increasingly common. The HD 8970M's OpenCL dominance points to compute-heavy applications like OpenCL-accelerated video encoding or physics simulation. The RX 460's additional benchmark entries (Metal and Vulkan) show a broader API surface, while the HD 8970M has only the one recorded score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon HD 8970M is the stronger part, delivering 18.9% higher scores in the head-to-head test. Its larger memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), wider memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit), and higher bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s) give it a structural advantage for memory-intensive tasks. The pixel rate advantage of 50% reinforces its suitability for fill-rate-bound rendering.

If the workload is modern API gaming or power-constrained environments, the AMD Radeon RX 460 is the more sensible choice. Its Vulkan 1.3 support, DirectX 12 (12_0) compliance, and FP16 capability align with contemporary software expectations. The 75 W TDP and dual-slot desktop form factor make it a drop-in solution for standard PCs, while the HD 8970M requires an MXM-compatible laptop. The RX 460's higher clocks (1090 MHz base, 1200 MHz boost) and smaller die (123 mm² versus 212 mm²) demonstrate the efficiency gains of the 14 nm process.

The percentile rankings reinforce the nuance: the HD 8970M sits at the 66th percentile, the RX 460 at the 62nd. That 4-point gap in overall standing matches the OpenCL delta. But the RX 460's Vulkan score of 20,198 nearly closes the gap to the HD 8970M's OpenCL score of 21,237, suggesting that API-optimized workloads could flip the result. The database records only one head-to-head test, so the verdict rests on a single metric: for pure OpenCL throughput, pick the HD 8970M; for modern API support and efficiency, pick the RX 460.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8970M scores 21,237 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 17,855, giving the HD 8970M an 18.9% lead.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The HD 8970M has 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 460 has 112.0 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The HD 8970M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module form factor. The RX 460 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The HD 8970M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of pixel and texture rates?

A: The HD 8970M achieves 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s, while the RX 460 achieves 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s. The HD 8970M leads by 50% in pixel rate and 7% in texture rate.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The HD 8970M has 13.2 million transistors per mm² on a 212 mm² die, while the RX 460 has 24.4 million transistors per mm² on a 123 mm² die, reflecting the 14 nm process advantage.