AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along API boundaries. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 takes two of the three head-to-head tests, winning decisively in Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 claims the remaining test, Geekbench Metal, with a commanding margin. This is not a close overall contest: the Quadro K6000 wins 2 out of 3 comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 19030 sits well above the Radeon Pro 460's 17509.

For compute-heavy workloads using OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro K6000 is the clear choice. Its OpenCL score of 23749 is 55.4% higher than the Radeon Pro 460's 15284, and its Vulkan result of 25409 beats the AMD card's 16816 by 51.1%. The data indicates a substantial performance advantage in these APIs, likely reflecting the NVIDIA card's larger shader count and wider memory bus, both of which are relevant to raw compute throughput.

The Radeon Pro 460 dominates in Metal, the Apple-developed graphics API. Its score of 20426 is 61.2% higher than the Quadro K6000's 7932. This is a massive reversal. Given that the Radeon Pro 460 is part of the "Radeon Pro Mac" generation, its Metal optimization is evidently strong. For users working within a Metal-centric ecosystem, the AMD card is the superior option despite losing the overall benchmark average.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Quadro K6000 ranks in the 63rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro 460 ranks in the 61st. The gap is small, but the K6000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (average score 19036, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.1% delta), placing it just below those modern cards. The Radeon Pro 460's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17551, -0.2% delta), showing it clusters with older workstation parts. In short, the K6000 is the stronger all-around performer, but the Radeon Pro 460 has a specific, narrow area of excellence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins decisively with a score of 20426, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000's 7932. The delta is -61.2% from the NVIDIA card's perspective, meaning the AMD card is far ahead in this API.

Q: What about OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 takes OpenCL with a score of 23749 versus the Radeon Pro 460's 15284. That is a 55.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do they compare in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins Vulkan as well, scoring 25409 against the Radeon Pro 460's 16816, a 51.1% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The K6000's memory bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s compared to 81.28 GB/s for the AMD card.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460's Baffin chip has a transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter, built on a 14 nm process. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000's GK110B chip has 12.6 million per square millimeter on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which card has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19030, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 averages 17509. The K6000 also sits at the 63rd percentile versus the 61st for the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single win in the head-to-head set belongs to the AMD Radeon Pro 460 in Geekbench Metal. Its 20426 score dwarfs the Quadro K6000's 7932, a 61.2% gap. This is not a marginal victory; it is a blowout. The K6000, despite its workstation pedigree and larger memory pool, is simply outclassed in Metal. The Radeon Pro 460's architecture, GCN 4.0, appears far better suited to this API, and its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation designation suggests it was built with Metal in mind.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 answers back in OpenCL. Its 23749 score is 55.4% higher than the Radeon Pro 460's 15284. The absolute difference is 8465 points, a substantial margin. The K6000's GK110B chip, with 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, delivers raw compute that the smaller Baffin chip (1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 16 ROPs) cannot match. The K6000's FP32 throughput of 5.196 TFLOPS also doubles the Radeon Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS, which the OpenCL score reflects.

Vulkan tells a similar story. The K6000 scores 25409, beating the Radeon Pro 460's 16816 by 51.1%. The margin is 8593 points, the largest absolute gap in any test. The K6000's Vulkan support is listed as 1.2.175, while the Radeon Pro 460 supports Vulkan 1.3. Despite the newer API version on the AMD card, the NVIDIA hardware's compute resources carry it to victory. The K6000's pixel rate of 54.12 GPixel/s and texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s are both roughly 3.7 times higher than the Radeon Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s, explaining the consistent wins in non-Metal APIs.

Overall, the head-to-head record is 2 wins for NVIDIA, 1 for AMD. The K6000's wins are large, but the AMD card's single win is even larger in percentage terms. For users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan, the K6000 is the obvious pick. For Metal-centric workflows, the Radeon Pro 460 is not just better, it is overwhelmingly better.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries. The K6000's die is 561 mm² with 7,080 million transistors, versus 123 mm² and 3,000 million for the Radeon Pro 460. The AMD chip has a higher transistor density at 24.4M per mm², compared to 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Memory is a clear differentiator. The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The K6000's memory clocks run at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the AMD card's memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). This gives the NVIDIA card nearly 3.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Compute resources also differ sharply. The K6000 has 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds are closer: the K6000's base is 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 460's base is 850 MHz with a boost of 907 MHz. The AMD card actually has a higher base clock, but the NVIDIA card's massive shader count overwhelms that advantage.

Power and physical specs diverge completely. The K6000 has a TDP of 225 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, suggests a 550 W PSU, and is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length. The Radeon Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W, requires no power connectors, has no suggested PSU, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed dimensions. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the K6000 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon Pro 460. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 on the NVIDIA card, while the AMD card's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

Release timing is also distinct. The K6000 launched on July 22, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD. The Radeon Pro 460 launched on October 29, 2016, with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life products, but they come from different eras of GPU development.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip under the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip under GCN 4.0, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation. These are different design philosophies separated by three years of development.

Kepler was designed for high-end workstation compute. The GK110B die is massive at 561 mm², housing 7,080 million transistors. Its 2880 shading units are organized for parallel throughput, and the 384-bit memory bus feeds them with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Kepler's strength lies in raw FP32 compute, which the 5.196 TFLOPS figure demonstrates. The K6000's predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, placing it in a direct lineage of professional cards.

GCN 4.0 on Baffin is a smaller, more efficient design. The die is just 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, built on a more advanced 14 nm process. The 1024 shading units are fewer, but the architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher version than the K6000's 11_1. It also supports Vulkan 1.3, newer than the K6000's 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon Pro 460 also has FP16 support at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the K6000 has no FP16 capability listed. For Metal, the GCN 4.0 architecture clearly has an advantage, as the benchmark results show.

The foundries differ: TSMC for NVIDIA, GlobalFoundries for AMD. The transistor density tells the efficiency story. The Baffin chip packs 24.4M transistors per mm², nearly double the GK110B's 12.6M per mm². This density advantage, combined with the lower 35 W TDP, makes the Radeon Pro 460 a far more power-efficient part. However, the K6000's larger chip and higher power budget (225 W) deliver the raw compute performance that wins OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

The API support differences are worth emphasizing. The Radeon Pro 460 has DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer than the K6000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Yet in practice, the K6000 still wins Vulkan by 51.1%. This suggests that hardware resources matter more than API version alone. The K6000's 2880 shading units and 384-bit bus provide the muscle, while the Radeon Pro 460's Metal optimization is a software-driven advantage that overcomes its smaller hardware footprint. The architecture differences, therefore, produce a complementary pair: NVIDIA for OpenCL and Vulkan compute, AMD for Metal-centric environments.