AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 represent two vastly different eras and market segments, yet the benchmark database places them within the same percentile tier (both at the 61st percentile vs. all GPUs). This is a curious statistical artifact, as the raw performance gap is enormous — the RTX 3070 leads by 86.5% in Geekbench OpenCL and 20% in Geekbench Vulkan. The explanation lies in the database's averaging methodology, which includes the Radeon Pro 460's Metal score (20426) and the RTX 3070's extensive Passmark suite, dragging the NVIDIA card's average down to 17208 versus the AMD card's 17509 average. The data suggests these cards occupy similar statistical positions but for entirely different reasons, making a direct comparison less about performance parity and more about architectural philosophy and workload targeting.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 460's only competitive advantage in the database is its Geekbench Metal score of 20426, a test that the RTX 3070 does not appear in. This is a meaningful data point for macOS-centric workloads, given the Radeon Pro 460's "Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)" generation designation. The card's OpenCL score (15284) and Vulkan score (16816) are both far below the RTX 3070's, but the Metal result demonstrates that the architecture's compute capabilities are not uniformly weak — they are simply optimized for Apple's graphics API rather than cross-platform benchmarks.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 wins every head-to-head benchmark where both cards appear. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 112821 versus 15284, a staggering 86.5% margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 21022 versus 16816, a 20% lead. Beyond these direct comparisons, the RTX 3070's Passmark results show a balanced profile: G3D score of 22214, GPU Compute of 11195, and G2D of 1001. The Radeon Pro 460 has no Passmark entries, so the RTX 3070 also wins on benchmark coverage breadth. The RTX 3070's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3162 adds another modern test dimension that the AMD card simply cannot participate in, given its DirectX 12 (12_0) support versus the RTX 3070's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is extreme. The Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, packing 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die. The RTX 3070 uses the GA104 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 17,400 million transistors across 392 mm². Transistor density tells the story: 24.4M/mm² for AMD versus 44.4M/mm² for NVIDIA. The Radeon Pro 460's GCN 4.0 architecture is a decade-old design, while Ampere brings modern features. Clock speeds reflect this: the AMD card runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost, while the RTX 3070 operates at 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost.

Compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 3070 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Critically, the RTX 3070 adds 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores — hardware that the AMD card lacks entirely. Pixel rate (165.6 GPixel/s vs 14.51 GPixel/s) and texture rate (317.4 GTexel/s vs 58.05 GTexel/s) show the NVIDIA card's dominance in rasterization throughput. FP32 performance is 20.31 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS, an 11x difference. Memory systems diverge completely: 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the most lopsided data point in this comparison. The RTX 3070's 112821 score is 7.4 times higher than the Radeon Pro 460's 15284, with a deltaPct of -86.5% indicating how far behind the AMD card sits. This gap reflects not just raw compute but memory bandwidth — the RTX 3070 has 5.5x the bandwidth of the Radeon Pro 460. OpenCL workloads are often memory-bound, so this disparity is expected. The RTX 3070's 20.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance also dwarfs the Radeon Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS, making compute-heavy OpenCL tasks overwhelmingly NVIDIA-favorable.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive margin: 21022 for the RTX 3070 versus 16816 for the Radeon Pro 460, a 20% deltaPct. This is notable because Vulkan is a low-level API that can theoretically scale well on older architectures like GCN 4.0. The Radeon Pro 460's Vulkan 1.3 support is current, yet the Ampere architecture's superior geometry processing and driver optimization still win out. The 20% gap is far smaller than the 86.5% OpenCL gap, suggesting that the Radeon Pro 460 handles Vulkan's explicit command structures more gracefully than OpenCL's more abstract model.

The RTX 3070's additional benchmarks paint a fuller picture. Its Passmark G3D score of 22214 and GPU Compute score of 11195 indicate strong DirectX and compute performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3162 demonstrates modern rendering capability. The Radeon Pro 460 has zero results in these tests, meaning the database can only compare across the two Geekbench tests. This coverage asymmetry itself is a finding: the RTX 3070 is a general-purpose gaming and workstation card, while the Radeon Pro 460 appears designed for specific Apple ecosystem tasks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is the superior GPU by every measurable metric in the shared benchmark suite. It wins both head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 20% to 86.5%. Its architecture supports features the Radeon Pro 460 simply cannot offer — 46 RT cores for ray tracing, 184 tensor cores for AI workloads, and DirectX 12 Ultimate API support. The RTX 3070's 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provides 5.5x the memory bandwidth of the Radeon Pro 460's 4 GB GDDR5, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads.

However, the Radeon Pro 460 is not without a niche. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20426, achieved without a competing RTX 3070 result, suggests it holds up in Apple's Metal ecosystem. Its 35 W TDP versus the RTX 3070's 220 W means the AMD card is dramatically more power-efficient — the data shows the RTX 3070 requires a 550 W suggested PSU and a 12-pin power connector, while the Radeon Pro 460 is an IGP with no power connectors and mobile device-dependent display outputs. For a Mac-based user needing basic graphics acceleration, the Radeon Pro 460's low power draw and Metal performance may suffice. For anyone running OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX, or modern game workloads, the RTX 3070 is the only rational choice from this data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 wins decisively with a score of 112821 versus the AMD Radeon Pro 460's 15284, a deltaPct of -86.5% for the AMD card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 460 have any benchmark where it outperforms the RTX 3070?

A: The database shows no direct head-to-head win for the AMD card. Its only notable result is a Geekbench Metal score of 20426, but the RTX 3070 has no Metal result for comparison.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two GPUs?

A: The RTX 3070 has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6, while the Radeon Pro 460 has 81.28 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR5.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 3070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro 460 supports only DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The RTX 3070 contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, versus 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die for the Radeon Pro 460.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 460 has a 35 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the RTX 3070 has a 220 W TDP, requires a 1x 12-pin connector, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 460 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1725 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 5888 |

| TMUs | 64 | 184 |

| ROPs | 16 | 96 |

| RT Cores | None | 46 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 184 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 165.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 317.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.858 TFLOPS | 20.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | 20.31 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 220 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2020-08-31 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | None | 499 USD |

| Dimensions | None | 242 mm (9.5 inches) length, 112 mm (4.4 inches) height |