AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 records an average benchmark score of 17,509 across its three recorded tests, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti averages 15,548 across eleven tests, sitting in the 58th percentile. Despite the lower average, the GTX 1080 Ti wins every head-to-head test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher core count and clock speed?

A: The GTX 1080 Ti contains 3,584 shading units with a base clock of 1481 MHz and a boost of 1582 MHz. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part operates at substantially higher frequencies with more than triple the shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1080 Ti has 11 GB of GDDR5X on a 352-bit bus with 484.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is nearly 6 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: In which benchmark does the GTX 1080 Ti show its largest advantage?

A: The largest delta appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1080 Ti scores 67,929 against the Radeon Pro 460's 15,284, a difference of 77.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 is rated at 35 W TDP and uses no power connectors, designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP). The GTX 1080 Ti draws 250 W, requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connection, and recommends a 600 W power supply.

Q: Which API support levels differ between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the Radeon Pro 460 implements feature level 12_0 while the GTX 1080 Ti supports 12_1. For Vulkan, the AMD card lists 1.3 while the NVIDIA card lists 1.4. OpenGL is 4.6 on both.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Baffin chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die measures 123 mm² and contains 3,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². This is a compact, low-power design intended for integration into portable systems, as indicated by its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti uses Pascal architecture with the GP102 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 16 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 471 mm² and packs 11,800 million transistors, giving a density of 25.1 million per mm². This is a high-end discrete solution with a dual-slot form factor, requiring external power and a 600 W supply recommendation.

The shading unit count differs dramatically: 1,024 on the Radeon Pro 460 versus 3,584 on the GTX 1080 Ti. Texture mapping units are 64 versus 224, and render output units are 16 versus 88. These resource differences directly explain the pixel rate of 14.51 GPixel/s and texture rate of 58.05 GTexel/s for the AMD part, compared to 139.2 GPixel/s and 354.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card.

FP32 compute shows a similar gap: the Radeon Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS, while the GTX 1080 Ti reaches 11.34 TFLOPS. Their FP16 capabilities are fundamentally different: the AMD GPU performs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1.858 TFLOPS), while the NVIDIA GPU operates at a 1:64 ratio, yielding 177.2 GFLOPS. This indicates the AMD architecture treats FP16 as a first-class compute path, whereas the NVIDIA part prioritizes FP32 throughput.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface, while the GTX 1080 Ti uses 11 GB of GDDR5X on a 352-bit bus. The bandwidth figures reflect this: 81.28 GB/s versus 484.4 GB/s. Both support PCIe 3.0, but the AMD card uses x8 lanes while the NVIDIA card uses x16.

Production timelines differ as well. The Radeon Pro 460 launched on 2016-10-29 and is end-of-life. The GTX 1080 Ti launched on 2017-03-09, also end-of-life, with its predecessor listed as GeForce 900 and successor as GeForce 20.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The GTX 1080 Ti outperforms the Radeon Pro 460 in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, with wins in all three tests: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The deltas range from 33.3% to 77.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card. For any workload that leverages compute or graphics throughput, the GTX 1080 Ti is the stronger choice by a substantial margin.

The Radeon Pro 460, however, occupies a different role entirely. Its 35 W TDP and IGP form factor indicate a design for power-constrained portable systems where discrete graphics are impractical. The GTX 1080 Ti demands 250 W and a dual-slot chassis, making it suitable only for full desktop builds with adequate cooling and power delivery.

For users seeking maximum benchmark performance, the GTX 1080 Ti is the clear selection. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (0.2% lower average score) and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (0.8% higher), but in direct comparison here, it dominates the Radeon Pro 460. The Radeon Pro 460 sits near the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (0.2% higher average) and AMD Radeon 780M (0.5% higher), showing it is competitive within its low-power class.

The verdict from the recorded data: the GTX 1080 Ti is for desktop enthusiasts requiring maximum compute and rendering performance. The Radeon Pro 460 is for mobile or integrated systems where power efficiency and compactness take priority over raw throughput. Neither card is currently in production, so availability is limited to existing stock or used markets.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 14 nm for AMD versus 16 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is GlobalFoundries for the Radeon Pro 460 and TSMC for the GTX 1080 Ti. Transistor count is 3,000 million versus 11,800 million, and die size is 123 mm² versus 471 mm². Transistor density is close at 24.4M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm².

Clock speeds show the NVIDIA card running much higher: base 1481 MHz against 850 MHz, boost 1582 MHz against 907 MHz. Memory clock is 1376 MHz (11 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 11 GB of GDDR5X versus 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width is 352 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth is 484.4 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s.

The compute resources diverge sharply: shading units 3,584 versus 1,024, TMUs 224 versus 64, ROPs 88 versus 16. Pixel rate is 139.2 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s, texture rate is 354.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 11.34 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS. FP16 differs in ratio: 177.2 GFLOPS (1:64) versus 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications are opposites. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 35 W, has an IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The GTX 1080 Ti uses 250 W, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, and suggests a 600 W PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD and PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the AMD card, while the NVIDIA card lists 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 1080 Ti has physical dimensions of 267 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width. DirectX feature level is 12_0 for AMD and 12_1 for NVIDIA, and Vulkan is 1.3 versus 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 699 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results cover three Geekbench tests, and the GTX 1080 Ti wins all three with decisive margins.

In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 1080 Ti scores 30,624 against the Radeon Pro 460's 20,426. The delta is 33.3% in favor of NVIDIA. This test exercises the GPU through Apple's Metal API, and the result shows the NVIDIA card delivering roughly one-third more performance despite the AMD card's GCN architecture being well-optimized for this API in macOS environments.

Geekbench OpenCL shows the widest gap. The GTX 1080 Ti records 67,929, while the Radeon Pro 460 manages 15,284. That is a 77.5% difference. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute resources, and the GTX 1080 Ti's 11.34 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.858 TFLOPS explains this outcome. The NVIDIA card is nearly four times faster in raw FP32 throughput, and the benchmark reflects that advantage.

Geekbench Vulkan follows a similar pattern. The GTX 1080 Ti scores 40,511 against 16,816 for the Radeon Pro 460, a delta of 58.5%. Vulkan is a low-level API that exposes hardware capabilities directly, and the NVIDIA card's larger shading unit count and higher clocks translate into a substantial lead. The Radeon Pro 460's Vulkan score of 16,816 is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the GCN architecture handles Vulkan more efficiently than OpenCL relative to its compute ceiling.

The average benchmark scores from the broader database tell a more nuanced story. The Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509 across its tests, which places it ahead of the GTX 1080 Ti's average of 15,548. This inversion occurs because the GTX 1080 Ti's benchmark suite includes Passmark tests with low scores (DirectX 9 at 231, DirectX 10 at 118, DirectX 11 at 151, DirectX 12 at 66, G2D at 939), which drag down its overall average. The Radeon Pro 460's three Geekbench scores are all above 15,000, so its average remains higher.

Within their respective peer groups, both cards are closely matched. The Radeon Pro 460's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K40c, which scores 17,468, a 0.2% difference. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 0.2% higher, and the AMD Radeon 780M is 0.5% higher. The GTX 1080 Ti sits near the AMD Radeon R9 M380 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (0.8% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (1.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (1.7% higher). These comparisons show that the GTX 1080 Ti, despite its age, remains competitive with much newer GPUs in average score terms, while the Radeon Pro 460 is similarly competitive within its low-power segment.

The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Radeon Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1080 Ti sits at the 58th. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark distributions each card was subjected to. The GTX 1080 Ti's Passmark sub-tests are numerous and varied, pulling its percentile down despite strong Geekbench performance.