AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database separates these two AMD GPUs decisively. The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the clear performance leader, winning two of the three recorded head-to-head tests by margins exceeding 379%. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 claims only a single win, and that victory is in a compute workload where its score advantage is substantial but its overall capability remains far behind.

For users seeking modern gaming or general-purpose GPU acceleration, the RX 6650 XT is the only rational choice from the recorded data. Its Metal score of 97969 versus 20426 for the Pro 460 represents a 379.6% advantage, and its Vulkan score of 81306 versus 16816 represents a 383.5% advantage. These are not incremental gaps; they are generational leaps. The Pro 460, by contrast, wins the OpenCL test with 15284 points against 10111 points for the RX 6650 XT, a 33.8% margin, but this single workload does not offset the overwhelming deficits elsewhere.

The RX 6650 XT also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 65th percentile among all GPUs in the database versus the 61st percentile for the Pro 460. Its average benchmark score of 19765 outpaces the Pro 460's 17509 by roughly 12.9%. For anyone building a desktop system with discrete graphics in mind, the RX 6650 XT is the verdict. The Pro 460, with its integrated form factor and 35 W power envelope, serves a narrow niche of compact systems where the RX 6650 XT's dual-slot footprint and 176 W power requirement are simply not acceptable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The RX 6650 XT uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process node difference alone, 7 nm versus 14 nm, explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

Transistor counts tell a similar story. The RX 6650 XT packs 11,060 million transistors onto a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The Pro 460 contains only 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 6650 XT has nearly four times the transistor budget and roughly double the die area, which enables its substantially larger execution resources.

The RX 6650 XT also introduces hardware features absent from the Pro 460. It includes 32 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely missing from the older GCN 4.0 part. The RX 6650 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the Pro 460 only reaches DirectX 12 with feature level 12_0. Vulkan API support also differs, with the RX 6650 XT at version 1.4 versus version 1.3 for the Pro 460. Both share OpenGL 4.6 support.

The memory subsystems reflect the architectural gap. The RX 6650 XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory at 17.5 Gbps effective speed, producing 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory at 5.1 Gbps effective speed, producing 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650 XT delivers more than triple the memory bandwidth, a critical factor in modern workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers three benchmark tests, and the results are lopsided. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6650 XT scores 97969 against the Pro 460's 20426, a 379.6% delta. This is the single largest performance gap in the comparison. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and while the Pro 460 targets Mac systems, the RX 6650 XT still dominates in this test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6650 XT scores 81306 against 16816 for the Pro 460, a 383.5% delta. This is the largest percentage advantage in either direction. Vulkan is a cross-platform API, and the RX 6650 XT's RDNA 2.0 architecture clearly extracts far more performance from it than the older GCN 4.0 design.

The only test where the Pro 460 wins is Geekbench OpenCL. Here the Pro 460 scores 15284 against 10111 for the RX 6650 XT, a 33.8% advantage for the older card. This is a notable anomaly. OpenCL compute workloads on the Pro 460 appear to be better optimized or the workload itself favors the GCN architecture's compute characteristics. However, this single win does not compensate for the massive deficits in Metal and Vulkan.

Beyond the head-to-head, the database shows the RX 6650 XT with a broader benchmark footprint. It records scores across 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1859 points), PassMark DirectX 10 (109), DirectX 11 (169), DirectX 12 (62), DirectX 9 (215), G2D (918), G3D (17166), and GPU Compute (7532), plus Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. The Pro 460 only has three recorded benchmarks, all from Geekbench. This limited dataset for the Pro 460 means its average score of 17509 rests on fewer data points, but the head-to-head comparisons remain valid.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows divergence in nearly every category. The RX 6650 XT has a base clock of 2055 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz. The Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost, with no game clock listed. The RX 6650 XT's clocks are more than double the Pro 460's, which directly translates to higher throughput.

Shader resources differ by a factor of two. The RX 6650 XT has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 6650 XT also adds 32 ray tracing cores, which the Pro 460 lacks entirely.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these resource differences. The RX 6650 XT achieves 168.6 GPixel/s and 337.3 GTexel/s. The Pro 460 manages only 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells the same story: the RX 6650 XT delivers 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.59 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 6650 XT offers nearly six times the FP32 throughput.

Power and form factor differ drastically. The RX 6650 XT has a TDP of 176 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, suggests a 450 W power supply, and occupies a dual-slot form factor. The Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W, uses no power connectors, lists no suggested PSU, and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP). The RX 6650 XT connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the RX 6650 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro 460's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

Release timing separates them by roughly five and a half years. The Pro 460 launched on 2016-10-29, while the RX 6650 XT launched on 2022-05-09. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The RX 6650 XT has a recorded launch MSRP of 399 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Pro 460.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT has an average benchmark score of 19765, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average of 17509. The RX 6650 XT is ahead by roughly 12.9%.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 460 win the OpenCL test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 460 scores 15284 against 10111 for the RX 6650 XT, a 33.8% advantage. The database does not explain the cause, but the result indicates that the older GCN 4.0 architecture handles this specific compute workload more efficiently.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Metal and Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6650 XT leads by 379.6%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 383.5%. Both are dominant wins for the RX 6650 XT.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 6650 XT has 32 ray tracing cores, while the Pro 460 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The RX 6650 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 280.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is suitable for compact or integrated systems?

A: The Pro 460 is an IGP with a 35 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The RX 6650 XT is a dual-slot card with a 176 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W power supply.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6650 XT wins in every scenario where raw graphics performance matters. Its 379.6% Metal advantage and 383.5% Vulkan advantage make it the clear choice for gaming, 3D rendering, and any DirectX 12 Ultimate workload. The recorded PassMark results reinforce this: the RX 6650 XT scores 17166 in G3D, 7532 in GPU Compute, and holds a 65th percentile ranking. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for modern game textures and high-resolution assets.

The RX 6650 XT also wins on architectural features. It has twice the shading units, twice the TMUs, four times the ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 performance is nearly six times the Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS. For users who want to play current games at high settings, run ray-traced effects, or use GPU compute for creative work, the RX 6650 XT is the only option between these two.

The Pro 460 wins in a narrower set of circumstances. Its 35 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it can fit into systems where a discrete card cannot. The absence of power connectors and the "Portable Device Dependent" display output confirm its role in laptops and compact Mac systems. Its OpenCL score of 15284, which beats the RX 6650 XT by 33.8%, suggests that certain compute tasks on that API run better on the older architecture. For users constrained by power budgets or physical space, the Pro 460 is the viable pick.

The data also shows the Pro 460 sits close to its nearest rivals, with the NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17468 (0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 (-0.2% delta). The RX 6650 XT similarly sits near the NVIDIA Tesla K40m at 19885 (-0.6% delta) and the AMD FirePro W7000 at 19905 (-0.7% delta). Neither card is an outlier in its performance class, but the classes themselves are far apart.

Use-case splits follow the benchmark wins. Gamers, content creators, and anyone needing modern API support should choose the RX 6650 XT. Users of portable devices, systems with severe power limits, or those running specific OpenCL compute workloads may find the Pro 460 sufficient. The RX 6650 XT wins two of three head-to-head tests and dominates in every modern graphics metric. The Pro 460 wins one compute test and offers unmatched power efficiency. The verdict from the database is unambiguous: the RX 6650 XT is the superior GPU for almost all purposes, and the Pro 460 exists for a specific low-power niche.