AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5500 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the AMD Radeon Pro 460. Out of the three direct comparisons in the database, the W5500 takes all three, while the Pro 460 registers zero wins. This is not a close contest by any measure, and the margin is substantial across every workload type.

The Radeon Pro 460 does not hold a single advantage in any measured benchmark. Its strongest relative showing comes in the Vulkan test, where it still trails by 60%. The gap is largest in OpenCL, where the W5500 leads by 66.5%. In Metal, the W5500 is ahead by 62.4%. For any user relying on Geekbench scores to compare professional GPU performance, the conclusion is straightforward: the W5500 dominates.

Looking at the broader database context, the Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,509. The W5500 sits slightly lower at the 58th percentile, with an average score of 15,679. This apparent contradiction, where the lower-percentile card wins every head-to-head matchup, reflects the different benchmark mixes recorded for each product. The W5500's recorded tests include Passmark suites that drag its average down, while the Pro 460's average is computed only from its three Geekbench results. The head-to-head data is the more reliable comparison, and it shows a decisive W5500 victory.

For use-case splitting, the W5500 is the clear pick for any workload that stresses the GPU through Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan APIs. The Pro 460 is effectively outclassed in all three. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the older card wins, so the W5500 is the only defensible choice for compute-heavy professional tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink alone explains much of the performance gap, as the W5500 packs more transistors into a smaller relative footprint.

Transistor counts differ sharply. The Pro 460 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The W5500 has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, achieving 40.5M per mm². That is more than double the transistor count and a density improvement of roughly 66%, a direct consequence of the move from 14 nm to 7 nm.

The memory subsystems are also generations apart. The Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5500 doubles the capacity to 8 GB of GDDR6, keeps the same 128-bit bus width, and more than doubles bandwidth to 224.0 GB/s. Memory type and bandwidth differences of this magnitude translate directly into real-world differences in texture-heavy and compute-bound workloads.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the W5500. The Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5500 also has a much higher clock envelope: base clock of 1,744 MHz and boost of 1,855 MHz, versus the Pro 460's 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. The combination of more units and higher clocks produces a massive throughput advantage.

The W5500's FP16 output is listed at 10.45 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can process half-precision at twice the rate of FP32. The Pro 460's FP16 is 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, so it gains nothing from half-precision. For workloads that can use FP16, the W5500 is in a different class entirely.

Power and physical design also diverge. The Pro 460 is an IGP with no power connectors and a 35 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The W5500 is a single-slot card with a 6-pin connector, a 125 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The W5500 supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 460 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are also different: the Pro 460 is portable-device dependent, while the W5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test shows the W5500 scoring 54,302 against the Pro 460's 20,426. That is a delta of 62.4% in favor of the W5500. In plain terms, the newer card delivers more than two and a half times the Metal performance of the older one. For macOS-centric professional applications that rely on Metal, this is the single most relevant datapoint in the comparison.

The OpenCL test is even more lopsided. The W5500 scores 45,615, while the Pro 460 manages only 15,284. The delta is 66.5%, meaning the W5500 is roughly three times faster in raw OpenCL throughput. OpenCL remains a common compute API in professional rendering and simulation tools, so this gap has practical consequences for users running such workloads.

The Vulkan test narrows the margin slightly but still favors the W5500 decisively. The W5500 scores 42,021, and the Pro 460 scores 16,816, a 60% delta. Even the closest of the three comparisons leaves the Pro 460 far behind. Vulkan is increasingly used in CAD viewports and game engine rendering, so the W5500's advantage here is meaningful for real-time visualization work.

When placed in the context of the nearest rivals recorded in the database, both cards occupy similar tiers. The Pro 460's nearest competitors include the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon 780M (0.5% behind). The W5500's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti (0.8% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (1.1% behind). The W5500 is effectively trading blows with much more power-hungry desktop GPUs, while the Pro 460 is competing with entry-level mobile parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Metal workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is faster by 62.4%. It scores 54,302 in Geekbench Metal, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 20,426.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The Pro 460 has 81.28 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The W5500 has 224.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus.

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

A: The Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W and requires no power connectors. The W5500 has a TDP of 125 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Does the W5500 support half-precision compute at a higher rate than FP32?

A: Yes. The W5500 achieves 10.45 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning double its FP32 rate. The Pro 460 achieves 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no advantage over FP32.

Q: Which architecture does each card use?

A: The Pro 460 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process with the Baffin chip. The W5500 uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm process with the Navi 14 chip.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Pro 460 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the W5500 wins all three tests: Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The Pro 460 has zero wins.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior GPU in every measured category. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks by margins between 60% and 66.5%. It has more than double the shading units, more than double the memory bandwidth, and a much higher clock speed. Its 7 nm process allows a transistor density of 40.5M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm² on the older card.

Who should pick the Pro 460? Only users constrained by its integrated form factor and 35 W power envelope. It is designed for portable devices where a discrete card cannot fit and where power consumption is critical. For anyone building a desktop workstation or using a system that can accommodate a single-slot card, the Pro 460 is simply not competitive.

Who should pick the W5500? Professionals running Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan workloads that need substantial compute throughput. The 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU are modest requirements for the performance level delivered. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures than the Pro 460 could ever handle. The W5500 also supports PCIe 4.0, which future-proofs it for newer platforms.

The percentile rankings might confuse at first glance, since the Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile and the W5500 at the 58th. But the head-to-head benchmarks are the authoritative comparison, and they leave no room for interpretation. The W5500 is the faster card, often by a factor of three, and the Pro 460 should only be considered when its mobile-specific attributes are mandatory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 460 | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 64 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.858 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |