AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 460 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 share the same Baffin chip and GCN 4.0 architecture, but they are tuned for different worlds. The data shows a clear split: the RX 460 dominates in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, while the Pro 460 takes a decisive lead in Metal. The average benchmark score favors the RX 460 at 18,373 points versus the Pro 460’s 17,509 points, but the Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile against all GPUs, just one point behind the RX 460’s 62nd percentile. The real story is in the specific API tests, where the winner depends entirely on the software environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic margin belongs to the Radeon Pro 460 in the Geekbench Metal test. It scores 20,426 against the RX 460’s 17,065, a 16.5% advantage. This is not a small gap; it is the single largest delta between the two cards in any benchmark. The Pro 460’s Metal performance places it in a different tier for Apple-centric applications, and it is the primary reason the Pro 460 can claim a win at all.

The RX 460 strikes back hard in the Vulkan test. It scores 20,198, while the Pro 460 trails at 16,816. The delta is 20.1% in favor of the RX 460 — the largest win for either card across the three benchmarks. This Vulkan gap is substantial enough to define the RX 460 as the clear choice for cross-platform graphics APIs that rely on Vulkan.

In OpenCL, the RX 460 leads again, posting 17,855 versus the Pro 460’s 15,284. That is a 16.8% difference. While the margin is slightly smaller than the Vulkan gap, it confirms the RX 460’s pattern of outperforming the Pro 460 in general-purpose compute tests. The OpenCL result is particularly notable because it directly contradicts the Metal result, showing how API optimization can flip the competitive order entirely.

Looking at the averages, the RX 460’s 18,373 average score puts it within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A770M (18,383) and 0.9% behind the AMD FirePro D500 (18,533). The Pro 460’s 17,509 average is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468) and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639). These rival comparisons show that both cards sit in a similar performance band, but the RX 460 edges ahead on aggregate. The head-to-head win count is 2-1 in favor of the RX 460, which matches the benchmark deltas: it wins the two tests that matter most for raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 460 is the winner in Metal-based workloads. The 16.5% lead over the RX 460 in the Metal benchmark is the defining characteristic of this card. This makes it the logical pick for macOS environments, where Metal is the native graphics and compute API. The Pro 460’s 4 GB of memory also gives it a capacity advantage for holding larger datasets, even if the bandwidth is lower.

The Radeon RX 460 wins in every other measurable compute scenario. Its 20.1% Vulkan advantage makes it the better choice for Vulkan-based games and applications, which are increasingly common on Windows and Linux. The 16.8% OpenCL lead reinforces its strength in general-purpose GPU compute, which covers a wide range of productivity and scientific workloads. The RX 460 also has a higher average benchmark score (18,373 vs 17,509), so for mixed workloads that span multiple APIs, it is the safer bet.

The use-case split is straightforward: if the software stack is Apple-centric with Metal, the Pro 460 is superior; if the workload touches Vulkan or OpenCL, the RX 460 is the clear winner. Since most gaming and cross-platform compute relies on Vulkan or OpenCL, the RX 460 covers a broader range of real-world tasks. The Pro 460 is more specialized, trading raw compute throughput for a specific API advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the same Baffin chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 3,000 million, and the die size is the same at 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². There are no differences in the underlying silicon; the divergence comes entirely from configuration and clocks.

The RX 460 runs at a base clock of 1090 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The Pro 460 is clocked significantly lower, with a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 907 MHz. That is a 240 MHz difference at base and a 293 MHz difference at boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Pro 460 actually has more execution units: 1024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, versus the RX 460’s 896 shading units and 56 TMUs. Both cards have 16 ROPs.

The memory configuration differs in capacity and speed. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at a lower 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), yielding only 81.28 GB/s. The Pro 460 trades bandwidth for capacity, which helps in memory-heavy tasks but hurts in bandwidth-sensitive ones.

The clock and memory differences explain the benchmark results. The RX 460’s higher clocks and bandwidth drive its OpenCL and Vulkan wins. The Pro 460’s extra shading units and higher memory capacity help in Metal, likely due to optimization for Apple’s API. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the RX 460 hits 2.150 TFLOPS, while the Pro 460 manages 1.858 TFLOPS. Both have FP16 at 1:1 ratio, so there is no half-precision advantage for either.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 has 896. The Pro 460 also has 64 TMUs versus the RX 460’s 56, but both have 16 ROPs.

Q: Why does the RX 460 win in OpenCL and Vulkan despite having fewer shading units?

A: The RX 460 runs at much higher clocks — 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost versus the Pro 460’s 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. It also has higher memory bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. These factors outweigh the Pro 460’s extra shading units in general compute.

Q: Is the Pro 460 better for any specific API?

A: Yes, the Pro 460 wins the Geekbench Metal test by 16.5%, scoring 20,426 against the RX 460’s 17,065. This makes it the stronger card for Metal-based applications, typically found in macOS environments.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the Pro 460’s memory runs at a lower effective speed of 5.1 Gbps versus the RX 460’s 7 Gbps.

Q: How do these cards compare to other GPUs on average?

A: The RX 460’s average score of 18,373 is nearly identical to the Intel Arc A770M’s 18,383 (0.1% difference). The Pro 460’s average of 17,509 is 0.2% faster than the NVIDIA Tesla K40c and 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A: The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, while the Pro 460 is much more efficient at 35 W. The Pro 460 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the RX 460 is a dual-slot card that also requires no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear decision tree. If the target platform is macOS or any Metal-centric environment, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the only sensible choice. Its 16.5% Metal benchmark lead is decisive, and the 4 GB memory capacity is better suited for larger assets. The lower TDP of 35 W also makes it viable for compact systems where power and heat are constrained.

For everything else, the AMD Radeon RX 460 is the stronger card. It wins Vulkan by 20.1% and OpenCL by 16.8%, and it has a higher average benchmark score (18,373 vs 17,509). The RX 460’s higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth make it more responsive in compute and gaming tasks. Its 75 W TDP is higher, but still modest, and it is a dual-slot card that fits standard desktop layouts.

The percentile comparison reinforces this: the RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile against all GPUs, one point above the Pro 460’s 61st. The nearest rivals for the RX 460 include the Intel Arc A770M and AMD FirePro D500, both within 1% of its average score. The Pro 460’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40c and AMD Radeon Pro 560, all within 0.7%. Neither card is a powerhouse by modern standards, but the RX 460 is the better all-rounder.

The verdict is practical: buy the RX 460 for general compute, Vulkan gaming, and OpenCL workloads. Buy the Pro 460 only if Metal performance is the priority, which typically means a Mac or a Hackintosh build. The Pro 460’s single benchmark win is significant, but it does not compensate for losing the other two tests by double-digit margins.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications, all stemming from their different intended use cases.

• Base Clock: RX 460 at 1090 MHz; Pro 460 at 850 MHz.
• Boost Clock: RX 460 at 1200 MHz; Pro 460 at 907 MHz.
• Shading Units: RX 460 has 896; Pro 460 has 1024.
• Texture Mapping Units: RX 460 has 56; Pro 460 has 64.
• Memory Size: RX 460 has 2 GB; Pro 460 has 4 GB.
• Memory Clock: RX 460 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective); Pro 460 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: RX 460 at 112.0 GB/s; Pro 460 at 81.28 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: RX 460 at 19.20 GPixel/s; Pro 460 at 14.51 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: RX 460 at 67.20 GTexel/s; Pro 460 at 58.05 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: RX 460 at 2.150 TFLOPS; Pro 460 at 1.858 TFLOPS.
• TDP: RX 460 at 75 W; Pro 460 at 35 W.
• Slot Width: RX 460 is dual-slot; Pro 460 is IGP.
• Display Outputs: RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; Pro 460 is portable device dependent.
• Release Date: RX 460 on 2016-08-07; Pro 460 on 2016-10-29.