AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the stronger performer in synthetic workloads, winning both recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the NVIDIA Quadro M2000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 460 scores 15284 against 14588 for the Quadro M2000, a 4.8% lead. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon Pro 460 posts 16816 versus 14475, a 16.2% advantage. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the Radeon Pro 460 sits at 17509, while the Quadro M2000 trails at 14532. The AMD card also ranks higher overall, at the 61st percentile of all GPUs compared to the 56th percentile for NVIDIA.

The Quadro M2000 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, the data shows this is not a lopsided match in every dimension. The Quadro M2000 has a higher pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s), nearly double the ROP count (32 versus 16), and higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s). These are architectural strengths that matter for specific rasterization-heavy tasks, even if synthetic compute benchmarks favor AMD.

Who should pick which? Data-driven buyers prioritizing raw compute throughput, particularly in Vulkan workloads, should choose the AMD Radeon Pro 460. Its 16.2% Vulkan advantage is the single largest margin in the comparison. Those who need a dedicated single-slot card with four DisplayPort outputs and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, or who value the higher pixel throughput of the NVIDIA card, should consider the Quadro M2000. The form factor difference is significant: the Radeon Pro 460 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the Quadro M2000 is a single-slot, 201 mm (7.9 inches) long add-in board with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. For workstation integration into a standard desktop chassis, the Quadro M2000 is the practical choice; for a compact or portable system, the Radeon Pro 460 fits.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, foundries, and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die measures 123 mm² and contains 3,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Its die is larger at 228 mm², with 2,940 million transistors and a lower density of 12.9M per mm². The AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, a direct consequence of the newer 14 nm node versus 28 nm.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. AMD leads in shader and texture hardware; NVIDIA leads in pixel output hardware. Clock behavior also diverges: the Radeon Pro 460 runs at an 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost, while the Quadro M2000 has a lower 796 MHz base but a much higher 1163 MHz boost. The NVIDIA boost clock is 256 MHz higher than its AMD counterpart, which partially compensates for its fewer cores in compute tasks.

Memory configurations share the same size and type: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 105.8 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s, driven by a higher effective memory speed of 6.6 Gbps compared to 5.1 Gbps. The Quadro M2000 also has a wider system interface at PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Radeon Pro 460's PCIe 3.0 x8, which matters for data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Power and physical specs differ sharply. The Radeon Pro 460 draws only 35 W TDP and requires no power connectors, consistent with its IGP form factor. The Quadro M2000 draws 75 W TDP, also requires no power connectors, but recommends a 250 W system PSU. The Radeon Pro 460 is portable-device dependent for display outputs; the Quadro M2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2. API support is close but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon Pro 460 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the Quadro M2000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) features, and the Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Notably, the Radeon Pro 460 supports FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while FP32 output is listed as null for the Quadro M2000, indicating no recorded FP16 capability in the database.

Release dates sit about six months apart: the Quadro M2000 launched on 2016-04-07, and the Radeon Pro 460 on 2016-10-29. Both are marked end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two benchmark tests appear in the head-to-head set, and both are AMD wins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 460 scores 15284 against the Quadro M2000's 14588, a 4.8% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon Pro 460 scores 16816 against 14475, a 16.2% advantage. The Vulkan result is the standout data point that defines the overall comparison, as a 16.2% swing is a substantial gap in cross-architecture performance. The OpenCL win is narrower, under 5%, suggesting the two GPUs are closer in that API.

The average benchmark score confirms the ordering: AMD at 17509 overall versus NVIDIA at 14532, a difference of 2977 points. The Radeon Pro 460's average also places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17468) and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon 780M (17588). The Quadro M2000's average sits 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373), but 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692). These nearest-rival comparisons give context: the Radeon Pro 460 performs at the level of a mid-range GPU from later generations, while the Quadro M2000 sits in a slightly lower performance tier.

The single-benchmark wins correspond to compute-oriented tests. The Quadro M2000's higher pixel rate (37.22 GPixel/s) and texture rate (55.82 GTexel/s) do not translate into wins in these synthetic workloads. The Radeon Pro 460's texture rate is slightly higher at 58.05 GTexel/s, but its pixel rate is far lower at 14.51 GPixel/s. In these two tests, compute throughput as measured by Geekbench favors the AMD architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins both recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL 15284 versus 14588 (+4.8%) and Geekbench Vulkan 16816 versus 14475 (+16.2%).

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average benchmark score of 17509, placing it at the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average score of 14532, at the 56th percentile.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between these two?

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 offers 81.28 GB/s bandwidth on 4 GB GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus with a 5.1 Gbps effective speed. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 offers 105.8 GB/s on 4 GB GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus at 6.6 Gbps effective speed, making the NVIDIA card faster in memory bandwidth by 24.52 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs and form factor?

No, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, operates as an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, is a single-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.2, and uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Q: Which card has higher TDP and power requirements?

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W with no power connectors. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What are the transistor counts and process nodes?

The Radeon Pro 460 uses 3,000 million transistors on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with a 123 mm² die. The Quadro M2000 uses 2,940 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process with a 228 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins in compute-heavy workloads. It takes both head-to-head benchmarks, with the 16.2% Vulkan lead being the defining margin. In terms of raw compute specs, the Radeon Pro 460 has more shading units (1024) and a higher FP32 throughput (1.858 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS). It also has a slightly higher texture rate (58.05 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s). The Radeon Pro 460's lower TDP (35 W versus 75 W) and higher transistor density (24.4M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm²) indicate a more efficient design per unit area.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins in pixel throughput and memory bandwidth. Its pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s is over double the Radeon Pro 460's 14.51 GPixel/s, supported by 32 ROPs versus 16. Its memory bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s is 24.52 GB/s higher. The Quadro M2000 also has a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), a higher memory clock (1653 MHz versus 1270 MHz), and a higher boost clock (1163 MHz versus 907 MHz). For rasterization-heavy tasks, fill-rate-bound workloads, or multi-display setups requiring four DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro M2000's hardware configuration is better suited.

For integrated or portable systems, the Radeon Pro 460 is the obvious fit: it is an IGP with no power connectors and a 35 W TDP, designed for portable device-dependent display output. For a traditional desktop workstation requiring a dedicated card, the Quadro M2000 is the practical selection: single-slot, 201 mm (7.9 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, and equipped with 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field.

Chip and process: AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses Baffin (GCN 4.0) on 14 nm GlobalFoundries; NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses GM206 (Maxwell 2.0) on 28 nm TSMC. Transistors: 3,000 million versus 2,940 million. Die size: 123 mm² versus 228 mm². Transistor density: 24.4M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm².

Clocks: Base 850 MHz versus 796 MHz. Boost 907 MHz versus 1163 MHz. Memory clock 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

Memory: Both 4 GB GDDR5 on 128-bit bus. Bandwidth 81.28 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s.

Core configuration: Shading units 1024 versus 768. TMUs 64 versus 48. ROPs 16 versus 32.

Performance rates: Pixel rate 14.51 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s. Texture rate 58.05 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. FP32 1.858 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS. FP16 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) versus null.

Power: TDP 35 W versus 75 W. Power connectors: None for both, but the Quadro M2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon Pro 460 has no suggested PSU.

Physical: Slot width IGP versus single-slot. Dimensions: Radeon Pro 460 has no recorded length, height, or width; Quadro M2000 is 201 mm (7.9 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.

API: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL 4.6 for both. Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.4.

Release: Radeon Pro 460 launched 2016-10-29; Quadro M2000 launched 2016-04-07. Both production statuses are end-of-life. The Quadro M2000 lists its predecessor as Quadro Kepler and successor as Quadro Pascal.

Benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL 15284 versus 14588. Geekbench Vulkan 16816 versus 14475 (only the Radeon Pro 460 has a Geekbench Metal score of 20426). Average benchmark score 17509 versus 14532. Percentile 61st versus 56th.