AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM occupy very different positions in the database’s recorded results. The Radeon Pro 460, a 2016-era integrated part built for Apple’s Mac lineup, delivers an average benchmark score of 17,509, placing it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs tracked. The RTX 3050 OEM, a 2022 discrete desktop card, posts a lower average of 15,199 but sits at the 57th percentile. That apparent contradiction, where the older card shows a higher average yet the newer card wins every direct comparison, stems from the benchmark sets available for each product. The database includes three Geekbench scores for the AMD part, while the NVIDIA part has nine entries spanning Geekbench and Passmark suites. The head-to-head data, which uses only the two Geekbench tests common to both, tells a clearer story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the two directly comparable tests, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM dominates both. On Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 against the Radeon Pro 460’s 15,284. That is a delta of 74.8 percent in NVIDIA’s favor, meaning the RTX 3050 OEM delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in this workload. The margin is stark, and it reflects the fundamental gap in raw shading resources, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth between the two designs.

The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The RTX 3050 OEM records 57,103, while the Radeon Pro 460 manages 16,816. The delta here is 70.6 percent. While slightly closer than the OpenCL result, it remains an overwhelming victory for the NVIDIA card. The Radeon Pro 460’s Vulkan score is actually its best of the three Geekbench results, suggesting the architecture handles the API reasonably well, but it cannot overcome the hardware deficit.

Notably, the Radeon Pro 460 has no recorded Passmark scores, while the RTX 3050 OEM does. Those Passmark numbers are not part of the head-to-head comparison, but they add context to the NVIDIA card’s overall profile. The RTX 3050 OEM scores 11,857 in Passmark G3D, 5,779 in GPU Compute, and 973 in G2D. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 137 for DirectX 9, 86 for DirectX 11, 61 for DirectX 10, and 58 for DirectX 12. These figures are not directly comparable to the AMD card, but they indicate that the RTX 3050 OEM’s performance is consistent across a broad range of workloads.

The wins tally is decisive: the RTX 3050 OEM wins both head-to-head tests, and the Radeon Pro 460 wins none. No benchmark in the shared set favors the AMD part. The closest the Pro 460 comes is its Vulkan result, which is still 70.6 percent behind. In absolute terms, the NVIDIA card nearly quadruples the AMD card’s OpenCL output and more than triples its Vulkan output.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 460 does not win any shared benchmark, so its advantages must be inferred from its design profile rather than direct test results. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RTX 3050 OEM’s 130 W. It is an integrated part with no power connectors and a slot width listed as IGP, meaning it draws power from the host system rather than requiring its own supply. The RTX 3050 OEM, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. For systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained, the Radeon Pro 460 is clearly the more adaptable option.

The AMD card also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x8. In older systems or those with limited PCIe lanes, the Radeon Pro 460’s older interface is less demanding, but it also caps bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM’s display outputs include 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon Pro 460’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its Mac-centric integration. For desktop users with multiple monitors, the NVIDIA card offers more conventional connectivity.

The RTX 3050 OEM wins on every performance metric in the database. Its FP32 throughput is 8.087 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 460. Pixel rate is 56.16 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 126.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD card has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same bus width. The RTX 3050 OEM also carries 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, features the Radeon Pro 460 lacks entirely. Its shading units number 2,304 versus 1,024, and its ROPs double at 32 versus 16.

Where the Radeon Pro 460 holds any edge is in efficiency and integration. Its 3,000 million transistors on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process yield a die size of 123 mm². The RTX 3050 OEM uses 12,000 million transistors on an 8 nm Samsung process with a 276 mm² die. The AMD chip’s transistor density is 24.4M per mm², while NVIDIA’s is 43.5M per mm². The newer process node allows NVIDIA to pack more transistors into a larger die, but that comes at the cost of power and heat. The Radeon Pro 460’s 35 W TDP is less than a third of the RTX 3050 OEM’s 130 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is vastly faster in every shared benchmark. The 74.8 percent OpenCL lead and 70.6 percent Vulkan lead are not close margins. For any workload that relies on compute, rendering, or general GPU acceleration, the RTX 3050 OEM is the superior choice by a wide margin. Its 8 GB memory capacity doubles the AMD card’s 4 GB, and its bandwidth advantage of 224.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s means large datasets and high-resolution textures will transfer far faster.

The Radeon Pro 460’s only practical advantages are its power envelope and its integration. At 35 W, it can operate in systems where a 130 W card would require a PSU upgrade. Its IGP form factor means it occupies no expansion slot and needs no power cable. For a compact Mac workstation or a low-power build, that simplicity has value. But the database shows no test where the Radeon Pro 460 outperforms the RTX 3050 OEM, and the percentile rankings, 61st versus 57th, are misleading without the benchmark-set context.

Who should pick the RTX 3050 OEM? Anyone running compute-heavy applications, modern games, or any workload that benefits from ray tracing or tensor cores. The NVIDIA card’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API coverage make it future-proof for contemporary software. Its Passmark G3D score of 11,857 suggests strong rasterization performance, and the GPU Compute score of 5,779 indicates solid general-purpose compute.

Who should pick the Radeon Pro 460? Only those constrained by power, space, or system architecture. Its 35 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete card. Its GCN 4.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so it is not obsolete for basic rendering. But the performance gap is so large that any choice favoring the AMD card must be based on physical and electrical constraints, not performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average benchmark score of 17,509, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199. However, the AMD card’s average is based on three Geekbench tests, while the NVIDIA card includes nine tests spanning Geekbench and Passmark.

Q: What are the direct head-to-head results?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM wins both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 60,740 versus 15,284, a 74.8 percent lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 57,103 versus 16,816, a 70.6 percent lead.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 460 has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RTX 3050 OEM has 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 has a 35 W TDP and no power connectors. The RTX 3050 OEM has a 130 W TDP, requires one 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which card supports newer PCIe generations?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the AMD card’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The Radeon Pro 460 is built on GCN 4.0, AMD’s fourth-generation Graphics Core Next design, using the Baffin chip. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is 24.4M per mm². The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, but it has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware. Its FP16 and FP32 rates are identical at 1.858 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio with no specialized half-precision acceleration.

The RTX 3050 OEM is built on Ampere, NVIDIA’s second-generation ray tracing architecture, using the GA106 chip. It is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The transistor density is 43.5M per mm², nearly double that of the AMD chip. Ampere brings dedicated 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. Its FP16 and FP32 rates are also 1:1 at 8.087 TFLOPS, but the absolute throughput is 4.35 times higher than the Radeon Pro 460.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Radeon Pro 460 runs at a base of 850 MHz and boosts to 907 MHz. The RTX 3050 OEM runs at a base of 1,515 MHz and boosts to 1,755 MHz. That base clock alone is nearly double the AMD card’s boost clock. Memory clocks also diverge: the AMD card uses 1,270 MHz GDDR5 with 5.1 Gbps effective data rate, while the NVIDIA card uses 1,750 MHz GDDR6 with 14 Gbps effective. The combination of higher clocks, more shading units, and faster memory explains the overwhelming benchmark margins.

The compute resources are not comparable. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate for the NVIDIA card is 56.16 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 126.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card also supports a newer DirectX feature level, 12_2 versus 12_0, which enables features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

Physical and electrical characteristics reinforce the architectural divide. The Radeon Pro 460 is an integrated part with no slot width, no power connectors, and a TDP of 35 W. The RTX 3050 OEM is a dual-slot card measuring 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height, with a single 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The AMD card is designed for portability and low power, while the NVIDIA card is designed for desktop performance. Their release dates are five years apart, October 2016 versus January 2022, and their production statuses are both end-of-life. The database shows no scenario where the older, smaller, less powerful AMD part competes on equal footing with the NVIDIA card.