AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon R9 M380 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro 460 across all shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench Metal workload, the Pro 460 scores 20426 against the R9 M380's 18476, a lead of 10.6%. This is not a marginal gap; it places the Pro 460 in a different performance tier for graphics-API tasks, where shader-heavy and memory-latency-sensitive operations are common.

The OpenCL result widens the divide further. The Pro 460 posts 15284, while the R9 M380 manages 12565, a delta of 21.6%. OpenCL generally stresses raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency. The Pro 460's advantage here is substantial, suggesting that its newer architecture extracts more useful work per clock cycle and per memory transaction. In practical terms, a workload that takes one hour on the R9 M380 would take roughly 49 minutes on the Pro 460, assuming linear scaling of that 21.6% margin.

The head-to-head tally is decisive: the Pro 460 wins 2 tests, the R9 M380 wins 0. There is no scenario in the database where the older card pulls ahead. Even looking at the overall average benchmark score, the Pro 460's 17509 sits well above the R9 M380's 15521, a difference of approximately 12.8%. The percentile ranking reinforces this: the Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the R9 M380 lands at the 58th percentile. Both are mid-pack products, but the Pro 460 is consistently the stronger of the two.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. The Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The R9 M380 uses the Strato chip built on GCN 2.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process shrink is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. This directly impacts transistor density, with the Pro 460 packing 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M380, by contrast, holds 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, for a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The newer node allows nearly double the density, which explains how the Pro 460 achieves higher performance with a lower thermal design power of 35 W.

The compute resources differ in scale. The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The R9 M380 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 460 thus fields 33% more shaders and 33% more TMUs, while matching the ROP count. This explains the Pro 460's higher texture rate of 58.05 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate tells a different story: the R9 M380 achieves 16.00 GPixel/s against the Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s, a 10.3% advantage for the older card. This stems from the R9 M380's higher clock speeds, which we will examine shortly.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and type. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, the bandwidth differs: the R9 M380 delivers 96.00 GB/s, while the Pro 460 delivers 81.28 GB/s. The R9 M380's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), versus the Pro 460's 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The older card has an 18% bandwidth advantage, which helps its pixel rate but does not overcome the Pro 460's compute superiority in the benchmark results.

Clock speeds also favor the R9 M380. Its base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 1000 MHz. The Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the Pro 460's FP32 throughput is 1.858 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS for the R9 M380, a 21% advantage. This is the arithmetic of more shaders at lower clocks: 1024 units at roughly 907 MHz beats 768 units at 1000 MHz. The Pro 460 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the R9 M380 lists no FP16 capability. For modern workloads that leverage half-precision, this is a meaningful feature gap.

The bus interface differs as well. The Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the R9 M380 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. In practice, for a 4 GB card, the x8 link is rarely a bottleneck, but the R9 M380's wider interface is a nominal advantage. The Pro 460 is an integrated graphics part (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs; the R9 M380 has unspecified slot width and connectors. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro 460 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M380 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a minor but present API-level difference.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 records an average benchmark score of 17509, compared to 15521 for the AMD Radeon R9 M380. The Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the R9 M380 sits at the 58th percentile.

Q: Is the R9 M380 faster in any measurable way?

A: Yes, in raw pixel throughput. The R9 M380 achieves 16.00 GPixel/s versus the Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s, a 10.3% advantage. It also has higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s, and higher boost clock at 1000 MHz versus 907 MHz. However, these advantages do not translate to wins in the recorded Geekbench tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The Pro 460 scores 15284 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.6% higher than the R9 M380's 12565. The Pro 460's FP32 throughput is 1.858 TFLOPS, versus 1.536 TFLOPS for the R9 M380.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these GPUs?

A: The Pro 460 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process (GlobalFoundries), while the R9 M380 uses GCN 2.0 on a 28 nm process (TSMC). The Pro 460's die is smaller at 123 mm² but holds more transistors at 3,000 million versus 2,080 million on the R9 M380's 160 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro 460 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M380 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Pro 460 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature the R9 M380 does not list.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, while the R9 M380 has 768. The Pro 460 also has 64 TMUs versus 48, while both have 16 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M380 in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. The Metal test shows a 10.6% lead, and the OpenCL test shows a 21.6% lead. The Pro 460 also holds a higher average benchmark score (17509 versus 15521) and a higher percentile ranking (61 versus 58). For any task that relies on shader compute, texture throughput, or modern API features, the Pro 460 is the stronger choice.

The R9 M380 is not without merit. Its higher pixel rate (16.00 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s), higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s), and higher clocks (1000 MHz boost versus 907 MHz boost) suggest it may handle certain fill-rate-bound or bandwidth-bound tasks with relative efficiency. However, the database contains no benchmark where the R9 M380 wins. Its architectural age, GCN 2.0 on 28 nm, limits its ability to translate clock and bandwidth advantages into real-world compute wins.

The Pro 460's newer GCN 4.0 architecture on 14 nm delivers better efficiency and higher absolute performance. Its 33% more shading units and 33% more TMUs, combined with a smaller die and lower TDP of 35 W, make it the technically superior part. The R9 M380's wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a nominal advantage, but the Pro 460's x8 link does not appear to hinder its benchmark results. Users seeking the best performance from these two options should choose the Pro 460 without hesitation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 460 | AMD Radeon R9 M380 |

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

| Chip | Baffin | Strato |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 16.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 48.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.858 TFLOPS | 1.536 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 35 W | null |

| Slot Width | IGP | null |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | null |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | null | Solar System |

| Successor | null | Polaris Mobile |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins in all measured compute benchmarks. It is the choice for OpenCL workloads, where its 21.6% lead over the R9 M380 (15284 versus 12565) matters most. It also wins in Metal-based graphics, leading by 10.6% (20426 versus 18476). Its higher shading unit count (1024 versus 768), higher texture rate (58.05 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1.858 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS) make it the superior card for shader-heavy rendering, compute offload, and any application that can leverage its FP16 support. The Pro 460's lower TDP of 35 W also makes it more suitable for power-constrained mobile or integrated deployments.

The AMD Radeon R9 M380 has no benchmark wins in the database, but its specification sheet shows areas where it could theoretically excel. Its pixel rate of 16.00 GPixel/s exceeds the Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s, which could benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture blits or simple 2D composition. Its memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s means it can move data faster to and from VRAM, which may help in bandwidth-bound tasks. Its higher boost clock of 1000 MHz versus 907 MHz gives it a clock-for-clock advantage in single-threaded GPU operations. However, without a recorded benchmark win, these advantages remain theoretical. For any workload represented in the database, the Pro 460 is the clear winner. Users with legacy software that predates GCN 4.0 driver optimizations might find the R9 M380's older architecture has more mature support, but the data does not show this translating into performance gains. The Pro 460 is the recommended part for all measured scenarios.