AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 and AMD Radeon Pro 5600M are both integrated-class mobile GPUs from AMD’s Radeon Pro Mac lineup, but they belong to different generations and architectures. Benchmark results show a decisive performance gap, with the Pro 5600M winning all three head-to-head tests by margins ranging from 62.9% to 68%. The Pro 460, based on the older GCN 4.0 design, posts an average benchmark score of 17509, while the Pro 5600M, built on RDNA 1.0, averages 16351 — a counterintuitive result explained by the Pro 5600M’s inclusion of additional DirectX and Passmark tests that drag its average down. This analysis walks through the data to clarify where each GPU wins, what architectural changes drive the gap, and which product suits which workload.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins every benchmark where both GPUs were tested. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 5600M scores 55030 against the Pro 460’s 20426, a delta of -62.9% (meaning the Pro 460 trails by that percentage). In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5600M posts 47783 versus 15284, a -68% gap. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5600M reaches 46425 while the Pro 460 manages 16816, a -63.8% difference. There are zero wins for the Pro 460 across the three shared tests.

However, the Pro 460 does hold a position in the aggregate percentile rankings. It sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro 5600M ranks at the 59th percentile. This discrepancy stems from the benchmark suites each GPU runs. The Pro 460 has only three Geekbench scores, all relatively high for its class. The Pro 5600M adds seven Passmark tests — DirectX 10 (62), DirectX 11 (59), DirectX 12 (39), DirectX 9 (118), G2D (679), G3D (9279), and GPU Compute (4031) — which pull its average down to 16351. So while the Pro 5600M dominates in raw compute-oriented tests, its broader test coverage lowers its average relative to the Pro 460’s narrow, high-scoring set.

For use-case splitting, the Pro 5600M is the clear choice for Metal-accelerated macOS workloads, OpenCL compute, and Vulkan rendering, given its three-to-four-fold score advantages. The Pro 460, despite losing every head-to-head, remains relevant only for legacy applications that favor its GCN 4.0 feature set or for systems where its lower power envelope (35 W versus 50 W) is a constraint. The data does not show any test where the Pro 460 outperforms the Pro 5600M, so any use-case advantage for the older GPU would have to come from compatibility rather than performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs span a generational leap in AMD’s design philosophy. The Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, featuring GCN 4.0 architecture. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The Pro 5600M, by contrast, uses the Navi 12 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with RDNA 1.0 architecture. Its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, but the process shrink alone suggests a different design target.

Core counts differ sharply. The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Pro 5600M more than doubles this: 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 14.51 GPixel/s on the Pro 460 to 73.22 GPixel/s on the Pro 5600M, a five-fold increase. Texture rate rises from 58.05 GTexel/s to 183.0 GTexel/s, roughly 3.2 times higher. FP32 compute scales from 1.858 TFLOPS to 5.857 TFLOPS, a 3.15x improvement. The Pro 5600M also supports FP16 at 2:1 ratio (11.71 TFLOPS), whereas the Pro 460 runs FP16 at 1:1 (1.858 TFLOPS), meaning the newer GPU can double its throughput for half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 394.2 GB/s — nearly five times the bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a nuanced story: the Pro 460 has a higher base clock (850 MHz versus 822 MHz) but a lower boost clock (907 MHz versus 1144 MHz). Memory clocks also differ: the Pro 460 runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the Pro 5600M runs at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective), yet the Pro 5600M’s wider bus more than compensates.

Other differences include the bus interface: the Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Pro 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, but the Pro 460’s DirectX version is 12 (12_0) while the Pro 5600M supports 12 (12_1). Power consumption rises from 35 W to 50 W, though both are listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest relative win for the Pro 5600M comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where its score of 47783 dwarfs the Pro 460’s 15284. This 68% delta reflects the Pro 5600M’s 2.5x higher shading unit count and its FP16 capability, which can accelerate compute kernels that support half precision. OpenCL is often memory-bound, so the 394.2 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth versus 81.28 GB/s GDDR5 also plays a role.

Geekbench Metal shows a 62.9% delta, with the Pro 5600M scoring 55030 against 20426. Metal is Apple’s low-level graphics API, and the Pro 5600M’s higher pixel rate (73.22 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s) and texture rate (183.0 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s) directly benefit rasterization-heavy tasks. The Pro 5600M’s 8 GB memory also reduces pressure in large scene workloads compared to the Pro 460’s 4 GB.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a 63.8% delta, with the Pro 5600M at 46425 and the Pro 460 at 16816. Vulkan’s explicit control over memory and queues favors the Pro 5600M’s higher bandwidth and wider ROP count. The Pro 460’s GCN 4.0 architecture lacks the RDNA 1.0’s optimized wavefront scheduling, which shows in compute-heavy Vulkan shaders.

Notably, the Pro 5600M’s Passmark scores are low in absolute terms (DirectX 12 at 39, G3D at 9279), but these tests were not run on the Pro 460, so they cannot be compared directly. The head-to-head table only lists the three Geekbench tests, and the Pro 5600M wins all three. The Pro 460’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (delta 0.2%), AMD Radeon Pro 560 (delta -0.2%), AMD Radeon 780M (delta -0.5%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (delta -0.7%), indicating it sits in a tight cluster around 17500 average score. The Pro 5600M’s rivals include AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (delta -0.1%), NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (delta -0.3%), AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (delta -0.4%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (delta -0.9%), all hovering near 16350.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a higher average benchmark score of 17509, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M’s 16351. However, this is because the Pro 5600M runs additional Passmark tests that lower its average; in shared Geekbench tests, the Pro 5600M wins all three.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two GPUs?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 5600M leads by 68%. The Pro 460 scores 15284, while the Pro 5600M scores 47783.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Pro 5600M offers 394.2 GB/s bandwidth via 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The Pro 460 offers 81.28 GB/s via 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Pro 5600M’s bandwidth is nearly five times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. They differ in DirectX: the Pro 460 supports 12 (12_0), while the Pro 5600M supports 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, while the Pro 460 has 1024. The Pro 5600M also has 160 TMUs and 64 ROPs, versus 64 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the Pro 460.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Pro 460 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the Pro 5600M uses a 7 nm process from TSMC. The Pro 460’s die is 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors; the Pro 5600M’s die size and transistor count are not listed.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior performer in every benchmark where both GPUs were tested. Its wins in Geekbench Metal (55030 vs 20426), OpenCL (47783 vs 15284), and Vulkan (46425 vs 16816) are not marginal — they represent deltas of 62.9%, 68%, and 63.8%, respectively. The Pro 5600M’s architectural advantages, including 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 394.2 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth, translate directly into higher pixel and texture rates. Its FP32 throughput of 5.857 TFLOPS is over three times the Pro 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability at 2:1 ratio adds compute flexibility.

The Pro 460, despite its lower raw performance, retains a higher percentile rank (61st versus 59th) and a higher average score (17509 versus 16351). This is a statistical artifact of its limited benchmark set — only three Geekbench tests, all of which are relatively strong for its era. The Pro 460’s nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its average score, indicating it sits in a competitive mid-range cluster. The Pro 5600M’s nearest rivals are similarly tight, within 0.9%, but at a lower average score.

For users choosing between these two, the Pro 5600M is the clear pick for any workload that leverages Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan — which covers modern macOS applications, GPU compute, and cross-platform rendering. The Pro 460 is only advisable if the system’s power budget is strictly limited (35 W versus 50 W) or if software requires the older GCN 4.0 feature set. The Pro 5600M also doubles the memory (8 GB versus 4 GB) and offers PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8, making it more future-proof. No benchmark in the data shows the Pro 460 winning any test, so the verdict rests entirely on the Pro 5600M’s consistent, large-margin dominance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 460 | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M |

|----------------|---------------------|------------------------|

| Chip | Baffin | Navi 12 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 822 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1144 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 394.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 64 | 160 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 73.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 183.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.858 TFLOPS | 5.857 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 50 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2020-06-14 |