AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the overwhelmingly stronger GPU across every benchmark where both cards have recorded scores. In the two shared tests, the W7500 wins both outright — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — with the Pro 460 trailing by 73.7% and 75.5%, respectively. For any user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the W7500 is the only rational choice from this pairing. The Pro 460's average benchmark score of 17,509 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the W7500's average of 16,415 sits in the 59th percentile — a counterintuitive result explained by the W7500's much larger benchmark pool, which includes several low-scoring DirectX legacy tests that drag its average down.

Who should pick which: The W7500 is for professionals or enthusiasts who need current-generation compute throughput, ray tracing hardware, 8 GB of VRAM, and modern API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4). The Pro 460 is only defensible in a legacy Mac environment where its IGP form factor and 35 W power envelope are mandatory constraints — nothing in the benchmark data recommends it on performance grounds. The Pro 460's nearest rivals (NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 0.2% ahead, AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 0.2% behind) show it trades blows with decade-old workstation parts. The W7500's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (0% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (0.3% ahead), placing it in far more modern company. If you can mount a single-slot card and have a 250 W PSU, the W7500 is the pick. If you are locked to an integrated form factor, the Pro 460 is the only option.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish," fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the generational leap: the Pro 460 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (24.4M / mm²), while the W7500 carries 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die (65.2M / mm²). That is a 4.4× transistor increase and nearly 2.7× higher transistor density, enabled by the much newer process node.

The compute configuration diverges sharply. The Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — 75% more shaders, 75% more texture units, and 4× the ROPs. The W7500 also adds 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 460. The FP32 throughput tells the story: the Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS, while the W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS — a 6.6× advantage. The FP16 rates are even more lopsided: the Pro 460 manages only 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the W7500 reaches 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning the W7500 has dedicated FP16 throughput that the older card lacks entirely.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s — a 3.15× bandwidth improvement. The W7500's memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the Pro 460's 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The bus interface jumps from PCIe 3.0 x8 to PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the theoretical link bandwidth. API support also shows the generational gap: the Pro 460 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The W7500 wins every benchmark where both cards have been tested, and its win margins are enormous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58,213 versus the Pro 460's 15,284 — a 73.7% margin in the W7500's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7500 scores 68,634 versus 16,816 — a 75.5% margin. There are zero benchmark wins for the Pro 460 in the head-to-head data. The W7500's additional benchmarks (PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute) further demonstrate its versatility, with a G3D score of 13,368 and a GPU compute score of 5,910.

The Pro 460's only comparative strength lies in its physical footprint and power draw. Its 35 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for compact or integrated systems where the W7500's 70 W TDP and single-slot form factor cannot fit. The Pro 460 has no power connectors, matching the W7500's connector-free design, but the W7500 requires a 250 W suggested PSU while the Pro 460 has no such requirement. The Pro 460's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the W7500 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1, giving the newer card a clear connectivity advantage for multi-monitor professional setups.

For real-world use-case splits: the W7500 is the pick for any compute-heavy workload — rendering, simulation, machine learning inference, or any Vulkan-based application. The Pro 460 is only relevant for legacy Mac Pro systems (the "Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)" generation) or any chassis that physically cannot accommodate a discrete card beyond an IGP. The Pro 460's percentile ranking (61st) is actually slightly higher than the W7500's (59th), but that ranking is based on a much smaller benchmark sample and does not reflect the W7500's superior performance in the tests they share.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average benchmark score of 17,509, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has an average of 16,415. However, the W7500's average is dragged down by its much larger set of benchmarks, including several low DirectX legacy scores (PassMark DirectX 9: 200, DirectX 10: 65, DirectX 11: 125, DirectX 12: 46).

Q: How much faster is the W7500 in OpenCL compute?

A: The W7500 scores 58,213 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Pro 460's 15,284. The W7500 leads by 73.7%, meaning the Pro 460 delivers less than a third of the W7500's OpenCL throughput.

Q: Does the Pro 460 have ray tracing support?

A: No. The Pro 460 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications. The W7500 includes 28 RT cores, a feature exclusive to the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The W7500 also has 3.15× the memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s) despite both using a 128-bit bus.

Q: Can the Pro 460 run Vulkan 1.4 applications?

A: No. The Pro 460 supports Vulkan 1.3 at most. The W7500 supports Vulkan 1.4, along with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Pro 460's DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The W7500 has a transistor density of 65.2M / mm², compared to the Pro 460's 24.4M / mm². This is due to the W7500's 6 nm TSMC process versus the Pro 460's 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two shared benchmarks, and the W7500 wins both by massive margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58,213 against the Pro 460's 15,284. The deltaPct of -73.7 (expressed from the Pro 460's perspective) means the Pro 460 is 73.7% behind. To put that in practical terms, the W7500 delivers roughly 3.8× the OpenCL score of the Pro 460. This is consistent with the FP32 compute gap: 12.19 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS, a 6.6× difference that is partially offset by the Pro 460's older, simpler architecture.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7500 scores 68,634 versus the Pro 460's 16,816, a deltaPct of -75.5. The W7500's Vulkan advantage is even larger than its OpenCL advantage, which aligns with the newer architecture's better Vulkan optimization (1.4 versus 1.3) and the presence of dedicated RT cores that can accelerate certain Vulkan workloads. The Pro 460's Vulkan score of 16,816 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 15,284, suggesting the older card has relatively better Vulkan drivers than OpenCL ones — but neither score is remotely competitive with the W7500.

The W7500's additional benchmarks provide context for its overall capability. Its PassMark G3D score of 13,368 and GPU compute score of 5,910 indicate strong rasterization and compute performance. Its DirectX 9 score of 200 is the highest of its DirectX legacy tests, while DirectX 12 scores just 46 — a quirk of the benchmark methodology, not a reflection of the card's actual DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The Pro 460 has no PassMark scores recorded, so no direct comparison is possible there. The win tally is 2-0 in favor of the W7500, with zero wins for the Pro 460.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 460 | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 |

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

| Chip | Baffin | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 64 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 190.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.858 TFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 216 mm × 115 mm × 20 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2023-08-02 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 429 USD |

The specification table reveals a multi-generational leap. Every compute metric favors the W7500 by factors of 3× to 10×, with the lone exception being the Pro 460's lower power draw (35 W versus 70 W). The W7500's 8.5-inch length and single-slot design make it a practical drop-in for many workstations, while the Pro 460's IGP form factor limits it to portable or integrated applications. The Pro 460 is end-of-life, while the W7500 remains active with a predecessor listed as Radeon Pro Vega. The launch MSRP of the W7500 is 429 USD, stated once here for reference.