AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon Pro 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a narrow but consistent edge for the AMD Radeon Pro 560 in two of the three tested workloads, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 claims a single victory in Vulkan compute. The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical—17,551 for the Pro 560 versus 17,509 for the Pro 460—a difference of just 0.2%. This places both cards at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, indicating they occupy essentially the same performance tier despite their generational split.

In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 560 scores 20,918 against the Pro 460’s 20,426. That is a 2.4% advantage for the newer part, the largest delta in either direction across all three tests. The Metal result is particularly relevant for macOS users, as Metal is the primary graphics API on Apple platforms, and both cards are designed as Radeon Pro Mac parts. The Pro 560’s win here suggests it handles compute and graphics workloads routed through Metal with slightly more headroom.

The OpenCL test shows a similar but smaller margin. The Pro 560 posts 15,504, while the Pro 460 manages 15,284. That works out to a 1.4% lead for the Pro 560. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute standard, and the result reinforces that the Pro 560’s architectural refresh yields a measurable, if modest, improvement in general-purpose GPU compute. The Pro 460, despite being a generation older, is not far behind—the gap is well within what could be considered run-to-run variance, but the direction of the delta is consistent with a newer, slightly more capable implementation.

The Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the Pro 460 wins with a score of 16,816 against the Pro 560’s 16,232. That is a 3.5% advantage for the older card, the largest percentage swing in the entire head-to-head comparison. The result is curious because both GPUs share the same GCN 4.0 architecture and identical core counts. The Vulkan delta may reflect driver maturity, clock behavior under specific workloads, or simply that the Pro 460’s Baffin silicon handles this particular API’s dispatch patterns more efficiently. Regardless, the data shows that the Pro 460 is not universally slower—it holds a clear lead in one of the three measured scenarios.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Pro 560’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon 780M, which scores 17,588—a 0.2% gap that puts the Pro 560 marginally behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 17,639, which is 0.5% ahead of the Pro 560, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c trails by 0.5% at 17,468. The Pro 460’s rival list is nearly identical, with the Tesla K40c 0.2% behind, the Pro 560 0.2% ahead, the Radeon 780M 0.5% ahead, and the RTX 4060 0.7% ahead. These deltas are tiny, underscoring that both AMD parts sit in a densely packed performance cluster where a few points of percentage separate them from modern integrated graphics and even a current-generation desktop GPU.

The takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the Pro 560 wins two of three tests, but the margins are small—2.4% and 1.4%—while the Pro 460’s Vulkan win is 3.5%. Net performance is effectively a wash for most real-world applications, with the Pro 560 offering a slight edge in Apple-centric Metal workloads and the Pro 460 holding its own in Vulkan. Neither card dominates the other in a way that would compel an upgrade solely on benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon Pro 560 and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 are built on the same GCN 4.0 architecture and the same 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 3,000 million, and the die size matches at 123 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The core configuration is also identical: 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The key architectural distinction lies in the chip names and the generation they represent. The Pro 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip, while the Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip. Both are part of AMD’s Radeon Pro Mac lineup, but the Pro 560 belongs to the 500 Series generation, released in 2017, whereas the Pro 460 belongs to the 400 Series generation, released in 2016. Despite the generational naming, the underlying architecture is unchanged—GCN 4.0 is GCN 4.0, and the silicon appears to be functionally equivalent in terms of compute resources.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The Pro 460 lists a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 907 MHz. The Pro 560’s base and boost clocks are not provided in the data, which suggests that either the card relies on a different clocking strategy or the information is simply unavailable. What is available is the memory clock: both cards run GDDR5 at 1270 MHz, translating to 5.1 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem is identical—4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. Pixel rate and texture rate are also the same across both cards: 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 and FP16 performance match as well, at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The power envelope is where the two diverge significantly. The Pro 560 has a TDP of 75 W, while the Pro 460 is rated at 35 W. That is a 40 W difference—the Pro 460 draws less than half the power of its successor. This is notable because both cards are integrated into portable devices (slot width is listed as IGP, with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs). The lower TDP of the Pro 460 suggests it was engineered for more thermally constrained environments, while the Pro 560’s higher TDP budget may allow for more sustained clocks under load, though the benchmark data does not explicitly confirm this.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for both cards. Production status is end-of-life for both. The Pro 460’s explicit base and boost clocks give it a defined clock ceiling, whereas the Pro 560’s clocks are unspecified in the data—perhaps an indication that the card’s clocks are dynamic or that the manufacturer did not publish fixed figures. In practical terms, the architectural similarity means any performance difference comes down to clock behavior and driver tuning rather than fundamental design changes. The Pro 560 is not a new architecture; it is a revision of the same GCN 4.0 design with a different power profile and a newer generation label.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 has an average benchmark score of 17,551, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460’s 17,509.

Q: Why does the Pro 460 win the Vulkan test?

A: The Pro 460 scores 16,816 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the Pro 560’s 16,232 by 3.5%. The data does not specify a cause, but both cards share the same GCN 4.0 architecture and core configuration, so the result likely stems from workload-specific behavior or driver optimization.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro 560 has a TDP of 75 W, while the Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W. The Pro 460 consumes less than half the power of the Pro 560.

Q: Are both cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, and their average scores differ by only 0.2%.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The Pro 560 was released on 2017-04-17, while the Pro 460 was released on 2016-10-29. The Pro 560 is part of the 500 Series generation, and the Pro 460 is part of the 400 Series generation.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro 560 is the faster card in the majority of tests, but the margin is thin. It wins Geekbench Metal by 2.4% and Geekbench OpenCL by 1.4%, while losing Geekbench Vulkan by 3.5%. The average benchmark score favors the Pro 560 by a mere 0.2%, and both cards sit at the 61st percentile. For anyone choosing between the two based purely on compute performance, the Pro 560 offers a slight edge in the two most commonly cited Apple-centric APIs, Metal and OpenCL. The Pro 460, however, is not a clear loser—its Vulkan victory shows it can outperform the newer card in specific workloads.

The power draw is the more decisive differentiator. The Pro 460’s 35 W TDP against the Pro 560’s 75 W TDP means the older card is significantly more power-efficient, making it the better choice for thermally constrained portable systems. If battery life and heat dissipation are priorities, the Pro 460 is the safer pick. If raw performance in Metal and OpenCL matters more, and the system can handle the higher power budget, the Pro 560 is the logical choice.

The shared architecture—same GCN 4.0, same 14 nm node, same 3,000 million transistors, same 123 mm² die, same core counts—means there is no fundamental capability difference. Both cards support the same DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions. The Pro 560’s advantage is incremental, not transformative. Buyers should note that both are end-of-life products, so the decision rests on whether the small Metal/OpenCL gains of the Pro 560 justify its higher power draw, or whether the Pro 460’s efficiency makes it the more practical companion for a Mac laptop.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon Pro 560 and the AMD Radeon Pro 460:

• Chip: Polaris 21 (Pro 560) versus Baffin (Pro 460)
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) versus Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)
• Base Clock: Not listed (Pro 560) versus 850 MHz (Pro 460)
• Boost Clock: Not listed (Pro 560) versus 907 MHz (Pro 460)
• TDP: 75 W (Pro 560) versus 35 W (Pro 460)
• Release Date: 2017-04-17 (Pro 560) versus 2016-10-29 (Pro 460)

All other specifications—including memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32/FP16 performance, process node, transistors, die size, bus interface, display outputs, and API support—are identical between the two cards.