AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT and AMD Radeon Pro 460 are both end-of-life mobile-class GPUs from AMD, but they belong to completely different eras and performance tiers. The data shows a decisive victory for the 5700 XT across every shared benchmark, with the 460 trailing by margins ranging from 151% to 289%. While the 460 holds a respectable 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs, the 5700 XT sits at the 63rd percentile, a modest overall gap that belies the massive raw performance difference in compute-oriented workloads. The following analysis breaks down exactly where each card wins, loses, and who should consider them based strictly on the provided benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 59,467 against the Radeon Pro 460's 15,284. That is a 289.1% advantage for the newer card, meaning it delivers nearly four times the OpenCL compute throughput. For any workload leveraging OpenCL—scientific simulation, video encoding, or general GPU compute—this is not a close contest. The 5700 XT effectively obliterates the 460 in this metric, and the deltaPct of 289.1 is the largest win recorded in the head-to-head data.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar trend, though slightly less extreme. The 5700 XT scores 56,593 versus 16,816 for the 460, a 236.5% lead. Vulkan is increasingly important for cross-platform rendering and modern game engines, and here the 5700 XT's RDNA 1.0 architecture demonstrates a clear advantage over the older GCN 4.0 design. The 460's Vulkan score is only 16,816, which is actually higher than its OpenCL result, but it still falls far short of the 5700 XT's output.

The narrowest margin of victory is in Geekbench Metal, where the 5700 XT scores 51,272 against the 460's 20,426, a 151% lead. Metal is Apple's low-level graphics API, and both cards are positioned for Mac systems, so this is the most relevant comparison for macOS users. Even here, the 5700 XT is 2.5 times faster. The 460's Metal score is its best of the three benchmarks, suggesting it handles Apple's API relatively better than OpenCL or Vulkan, but that relative strength does nothing to close the absolute gap.

Across all three head-to-head tests, the 5700 XT wins 3, and the 460 wins 0. The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story: the 5700 XT averages 18,685, while the 460 averages 17,509. That is only a 6.7% difference in average score, but this figure is misleading because the 460 lacks results for PassMark tests that the 5700 XT has. The PassMark G3D score alone for the 5700 XT is 12,547, and its GPU compute score is 5,787. Without comparable PassMark data for the 460, the average score understates the true performance gap in compute-heavy tasks. The head-to-head deltas of 151% to 289% are the more reliable indicators of real-world performance differences.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the superior GPU by every measured metric. It wins all three shared benchmarks, with deltas that range from 151% to 289%. If you need maximum compute performance, Metal rendering, or Vulkan throughput, the 5700 XT is the only rational choice between these two. Its 7.675 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth are in a different class from the 460's 1.858 TFLOPS and 81.28 GB/s. The 5700 XT also offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 4 GB of GDDR5, which alone could justify the upgrade for large datasets or high-resolution textures.

However, the 460 is not without a role. Its 35 W TDP versus the 5700 XT's 130 W TDP makes it a far more power-efficient option for systems where thermal headroom is critical. The 460 also requires no suggested PSU rating, whereas the 5700 XT suggests a 300 W power supply. For a portable Mac device with limited cooling, the 460's lower power draw could be a decisive factor. Its 61st percentile ranking is close to the 5700 XT's 63rd percentile, indicating that relative to all GPUs, the 460 is not a slouch—it just faces an opponent that is drastically faster.

The verdict depends entirely on your priorities. For raw performance and future-proofing, pick the 5700 XT. For power efficiency and integration into a low-power portable system, the 460 remains viable, but only if you can accept a 151% to 289% performance deficit in every shared workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins in every compute scenario measured. In Geekbench Metal, it leads by 151%, which matters most for macOS users running Metal-accelerated apps like video editors, 3D renderers, or machine learning frameworks. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 289.1% lead makes it the clear choice for cross-platform compute that does not rely on vendor-specific APIs. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 236.5% advantage covers modern game engines and emerging applications that use Vulkan for rendering or compute.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has no benchmark wins, but it wins on power efficiency. Its 35 W TDP is only 27% of the 5700 XT's 130 W TDP, making it suitable for passively cooled systems or laptops where battery life is paramount. It also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, matching its FP32 throughput at 1.858 TFLOPS, whereas the 5700 XT achieves FP16 at only 2:1 (15.35 TFLOPS versus 7.675 FP32). For workloads that rely on FP16 without native acceleration, the 460's 1:1 ratio is a minor advantage, though its absolute FP16 number is far lower. The 460's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is older and narrower than the 5700 XT's PCIe 4.0 x16, but for a low-power card, that bandwidth is likely sufficient.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 51,272 versus 20,426 for the Radeon Pro 460, a 151% advantage. This is the smallest performance gap between the two, but still a decisive win for the 5700 XT.

Q: How much better is the 5700 XT in OpenCL compute?

A: The 5700 XT scores 59,467 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the 460 scores 15,284. That is a 289.1% delta, meaning the 5700 XT delivers roughly 3.9 times the OpenCL performance.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes. The 460 has a 35 W TDP, while the 5700 XT has a 130 W TDP. The 460 also has no suggested PSU requirement, whereas the 5700 XT recommends a 300 W power supply.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The 5700 XT has an average benchmark score of 18,685, placing it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The 460 averages 17,509, at the 61st percentile. Note that the 460 lacks PassMark scores that the 5700 XT includes, so this average understates the true gap.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it matter?

A: The 5700 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The difference is substantial for large workloads, but the 460's lower power draw may be more important in constrained systems.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 5700 XT's average score is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 560X and 0.8% higher than the AMD FirePro D500, but 0.6% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 and 1% lower than the NVIDIA Tesla K80. The 460's average is 0.2% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla K40c, but 0.2% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 560, 0.5% lower than the AMD Radeon 780M, and 0.7% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². In contrast, the Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4M per mm². The process node difference alone—7 nm versus 14 nm—explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

The 5700 XT features 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the 5700 XT has 2.5 times the shading units, 2.5 times the texture units, and 4 times the ROPs. The 5700 XT's pixel rate is 95.94 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the 460, and its texture rate is 239.8 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

The 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 5700 XT's newer RDNA architecture provides better instruction-level efficiency and higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 1243 MHz and boost of 1499 MHz, compared to the 460's 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. These architectural differences translate directly into the benchmark deltas observed.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory. The 5700 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) with a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, delivering only 81.28 GB/s. This is a 4x capacity increase and a 4.7x bandwidth increase for the 5700 XT.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The 5700 XT runs at 1243 MHz base and 1499 MHz boost, while the 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. The 5700 XT's memory clock is 1500 MHz versus 1270 MHz for the 460. Compute throughput is another major divider: the 5700 XT delivers 7.675 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.35 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Power and connectivity differ as well. The 5700 XT has a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W PSU, while the 460 has a 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors, but the 5700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 5700 XT has no display outputs, while the 460's outputs are portable device dependent. Both are end-of-life, with the 5700 XT released on 2020-08-03 and the 460 on 2016-10-29. Neither has a listed launch MSRP, so no pricing information is available.