AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5700 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 represent two distinct eras of Apple-oriented workstation graphics, separated by process technology, architecture, and raw compute capability. The benchmark data positions the Radeon Pro 5700 as the clear performance leader, with the Radeon Pro 460 holding a narrow edge in overall GPU percentile ranking despite its massive deficit in raw scores. This page breaks down the quantitative differences, architectural shifts, and practical implications from the supplied data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are decisively one-sided, with the Radeon Pro 5700 winning all three recorded tests. In Geekbench Metal, the 5700 scores 60,126 against the 460’s 20,426, a delta of 194.4%. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a near-tripling of compute output in Apple’s preferred graphics API. The OpenCL test tells an even more dramatic story: 52,787 versus 15,284 represents a 245.4% advantage for the 5700. This suggests the 5700’s architectural efficiency scales better with compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL’s broader device access. Vulkan results follow the same pattern, with the 5700 at 51,289 and the 460 at 16,816, a 205% delta.

Interpreting these deltas requires context from the nearestRivals field. The 5700’s average benchmark score of 18,189 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159) and 0.5% ahead of the RTX 2060 SUPER (18,093). Meanwhile, the 460’s average of 17,509 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468) and within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588). The per-test deltas between the two AMD cards are so large that they dwarf the inter-brand rival deltas, indicating the 5700 is not just faster but operating in a different performance class. Notably, the 5700’s Passmark G3D score of 11,583 and GPU compute score of 4,961 have no direct equivalents in the 460’s sparse benchmark list, which only includes Geekbench tests. The 460’s percentileVsAllGpus of 61 is actually one point higher than the 5700’s 62? No, the data shows 5700 at 62 and 460 at 61—the difference is negligible, but it implies the 460’s lower absolute scores are offset by its position relative to a broader GPU population that includes weaker integrated parts.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark scores, the Radeon Pro 5700 is the superior GPU for any task that stresses Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan performance. The 194-245% deltas in head-to-head tests are unambiguous: if a workload runs on the 5700, it will complete in roughly half the time or better compared to the 460. The 5700 also benefits from a higher average benchmark score (18,189 versus 17,509), which correlates with its placement near newer mobile and desktop GPUs like the RTX 3060 Mobile and RTX 2060 SUPER. For users running GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, or high-resolution video processing, the 5700 is the only rational choice from this data.

However, the 460’s one-point percentile advantage (61 vs 62? The data lists 5700 at 62 and 460 at 61, so the 5700 is higher) — actually, the 5700 holds the higher percentile, so the 460 has no statistical edge. The 460’s lower TDP (35 W vs 130 W) and integrated nature might appeal to systems with strict thermal or power limits, but the benchmark data does not quantify that trade-off. The verdict is simple: the 5700 wins every measured performance metric, and the 460 only remains relevant for legacy compatibility or ultra-low-power scenarios where its 35 W TDP is a hard requirement. For any performance-sensitive buyer, the 5700 is the data-backed pick.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0. This is not a minor revision; RDNA 1.0 was designed to improve instruction-level parallelism and reduce latency compared to GCN, which explains why the 5700’s FP32 throughput of 6.221 TFLOPS is 3.35 times higher than the 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS. The process node difference is stark: the 5700 is fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the 460 uses GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. That process shrink allows the 5700 to pack 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 41.0M / mm². The 460, by contrast, has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4M / mm². The 5700’s density advantage is nearly 68% higher, which directly enables its larger execution resources.

The FP16 performance also reveals an architectural divergence. The 5700 delivers 12.44 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, indicating dedicated half-rate execution paths. The 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it treats FP16 and FP32 identically with no throughput gain. This matters for modern compute workloads that leverage FP16 for neural networks or image processing. The 5700 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 460 is limited to Vulkan 1.3, and DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0, respectively. Both support OpenGL 4.6, so legacy GL apps see no difference. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, so any ray-traced workloads would rely on compute shaders, where the 5700’s raw throughput advantage is decisive.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows every field where the two cards differ. The 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the 460’s 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That 2.25x shading unit count and 4x ROP count explain the pixel rate gap: 86.40 GPixel/s for the 5700 versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the 460. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 194.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. Clock speeds favor the 5700, with a base of 1243 MHz and boost of 1350 MHz, against the 460’s 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. Memory is a generational leap: the 5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 81.28 GB/s. The memory clock difference is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The 5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which halves the available bus lanes in an older standard. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the 5700 is rated at 130 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the 460 is rated at 35 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed. The 5700 has no display outputs, while the 460 lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. The 5700’s release date is 2020-08-03, nearly four years after the 460’s 2016-10-29. Both are end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 has 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, versus the Radeon Pro 460’s 81.28 GB/s from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 scores 51,289 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 205% higher than the Radeon Pro 460’s 16,816. The 5700 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 460 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 achieves 41.0M transistors per mm² on a 7 nm process, while the Radeon Pro 460 achieves 24.4M per mm² on a 14 nm process.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Radeon Pro 5700 was released on 2020-08-03, and the Radeon Pro 460 was released on 2016-10-29.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 has an average benchmark score of 18,189, while the Radeon Pro 460 has 17,509. The 5700’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159, 0.2% delta), while the 460’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, -0.2% delta).

Q: Do either GPUs support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, neither the Radeon Pro 5700 nor the Radeon Pro 460 has RT cores or tensor cores listed in their specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5700 wins every benchmark category where both have data, so the use-case split is less about task type and more about workload intensity. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, the 5700’s 245.4% advantage makes it the only viable option. Its FP32 throughput of 6.221 TFLOPS and FP16 capability of 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1) position it for scientific simulation, video encoding, or any workload that can saturate its 2304 shading units. The 5700’s higher pixel rate (86.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (194.4 GTexel/s) also make it better suited for high-resolution texture-heavy scenes, even if its lack of display outputs means it must be paired with a separate display adapter or used in a headless compute configuration.

The Radeon Pro 460’s wins are confined to power efficiency and form factor. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the 5700’s 130 W, and its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs suggest it was designed for mobile or compact systems where integrated graphics are the only option. For tasks that are latency-sensitive but not throughput-bound, such as basic 2D acceleration or legacy OpenGL 4.6 applications, the 460’s lower power draw might be preferable. However, its 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth mean any compute or modern 3D workload will be severely constrained. The 460’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, -0.5% delta), is an integrated GPU, which underscores that the 460 competes with modern iGPUs rather than discrete workstation parts. In short, the 5700 is for performance-critical workflows, while the 460 is for power-constrained, legacy-focused systems.