AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD Radeon Pro 460 are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from different architectural generations. The recorded benchmark data shows the Quadro M4000M holds a clear performance lead in the two shared tests, while the Radeon Pro 460 counters with a much lower power envelope and a smaller physical footprint. The following analysis breaks down where each part excels, their architectural differences, and the exact measured deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 19,989, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 scores 15,284. The Quadro leads by 30.8% in this test.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M4000M scores 20,971, and the Radeon Pro 460 scores 16,816. The NVIDIA part wins by 24.7% in this workload.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20,480, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509, which puts it in the 61st percentile.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 have any unique benchmark result?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 for the Radeon Pro 460. The Quadro M4000M has no Metal result recorded.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD Baffin chip packs 24.4 million transistors per mm², while the NVIDIA GM204 chip has a density of 13.1 million per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a smaller die size?

A: The AMD Baffin die measures 123 mm², compared to the NVIDIA GM204 die at 398 mm². The AMD chip is substantially smaller.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000M wins in raw compute across both shared DirectX/OpenCL-style workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts a 30.8% advantage over the Radeon Pro 460, which is a substantial margin for any pair of comparable mobile parts. In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead narrows to 24.7%, but the NVIDIA part still dominates. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking (65th vs 61st), indicating stronger overall positioning in the database's GPU hierarchy.

The Radeon Pro 460 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its TDP is 35 W, which is less than half of the Quadro's 100 W. It is also an IGP (integrated graphics processor) rather than an MXM module, meaning it can be soldered directly onto a logic board. This makes it suited for compact systems where the Quadro's MXM slot requirement would be impractical. The Radeon also offers a native Metal score of 20,426, which is a data point the Quadro simply does not have, making it relevant for macOS-oriented workflows.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro M4000M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. This chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The Radeon Pro 460 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, with the Baffin chip produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Baffin packs 3,000 million transistors into just 123 mm², which gives it a much higher transistor density of 24.4M / mm² versus the Quadro's 13.1M / mm².

The Maxwell 2.0 architecture brings a DirectX 12 feature level of 12_1, while GCN 4.0 tops out at 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware units.

Specification Differences

The Quadro M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1013 MHz. The Radeon Pro 460 runs at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The AMD part has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This ROP count difference is stark and directly impacts pixel throughput.

Memory configurations differ significantly. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, while the Radeon uses a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is listed at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), and the Radeon's is 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Despite the slightly higher memory clock on the AMD part, the narrower bus halves its bandwidth.

Compute rates diverge accordingly. The Quadro delivers 2.593 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Radeon delivers 1.858 TFLOPS. The Radeon does list FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro's FP16 performance is not recorded. Pixel rate for the Quadro is 64.83 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and texture rate is 81.04 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. Both parts have no power connectors and use portable device dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmark tests between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Geekbench OpenCL: The Quadro M4000M scores 19,989 against the Radeon Pro 460's 15,284. The delta is 30.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the largest performance gap recorded between the two. The result aligns with the raw FP32 throughput difference, where the Quadro's 2.593 TFLOPS exceeds the Radeon's 1.858 TFLOPS by roughly 39%, though the benchmark gap is smaller due to other factors such as memory bandwidth and driver efficiency.

Geekbench Vulkan: The Quadro scores 20,971, and the Radeon scores 16,816. The NVIDIA part leads by 24.7%. Interestingly, the Quadro's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, while the Radeon's Vulkan score (16,816) is also higher than its OpenCL score (15,284), indicating both parts improve on this newer API relative to their own OpenCL baselines.

The Radeon Pro 460's sole benchmark win is its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426, which is not contested by the Quadro. In the database's head-to-head summary, the Quadro records 2 wins and the Radeon records 0 wins across shared tests.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The Quadro M4000M's average score of 20,480 sits just 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and 0.4% below the Intel Arc B570, both of which are much newer parts. The Radeon Pro 460's average of 17,509 is 0.2% above the NVIDIA Tesla K40c and 0.2% below the AMD Radeon Pro 560, showing it clusters tightly with other mid-range workstation and mobile GPUs.

In practical terms, the Quadro M4000M is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, offering a 25% to 31% performance uplift over the Radeon Pro 460. The Radeon's advantages are confined to power draw, physical size, and Metal API support, which may matter in specific system configurations but do not translate to higher raw performance in the shared benchmark suite. The data indicates that for users prioritizing compute throughput, the Quadro M4000M is the superior part, while the Radeon Pro 460 serves niche integration and efficiency roles.