AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and AMD Radeon Pro 460 represent two very different eras of professional graphics, separated by process technology, architectural philosophy, and intended deployment. The data shows a decisive performance gulf, but the Radeon Pro 460’s role as a low-power integrated solution for portable Macs means the comparison is not purely about raw speed. This analysis relies strictly on the benchmark results, architectural specifications, and relative positioning provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share only two direct benchmark comparisons, and both are landslides. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540 against the AMD Radeon Pro 460’s 15,284. That is a delta of 387.7% in favor of NVIDIA, meaning the Quadro delivers nearly five times the OpenCL compute throughput. The gap is almost as stark in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro RTX 4000 posts 78,844 versus 16,816 for the Radeon Pro 460 — a 368.9% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational chasm in compute capability.

Looking at the wider benchmark picture, the Quadro RTX 4000’s average benchmark score of 17,789 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (average score 17,666, delta 0.7%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, delta 0.9%). The Radeon Pro 460 also sits at the 61st percentile with an average score of 17,509, but its nearest rivals tell a different story — the AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 0.2% ahead, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c is 0.2% behind. In direct comparison, the Quadro RTX 4000’s average score is 280 points higher than the Radeon Pro 460’s, a modest 1.6% gap in aggregate metrics. However, that aggregate figure masks the extreme divergence in the two shared workloads.

The Geekbench OpenCL result is particularly telling for compute-heavy tasks. The Quadro RTX 4000’s 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, combined with 2,304 shading units, dwarfs the Radeon Pro 460’s 1.858 TFLOPS and 1,024 shading units. The texture rate difference is equally pronounced: 222.5 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. Pixel rate shows a similar pattern, with the Quadro hitting 98.88 GPixel/s against the Radeon’s 14.51 GPixel/s. Every measurable compute metric in the FACT PACK favors the NVIDIA card by a factor of roughly four to seven times.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins every benchmark category where both cards have data. Beyond the two head-to-head Geekbench tests, the Quadro’s benchmark suite includes Passmark tests across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute scores. Its Passmark G3D score of 15,117 and GPU compute score of 6,176 indicate strong real-world rendering and compute performance. The card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, making it compatible with modern graphics APIs.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has no wins in any category, but its value lies elsewhere. It runs on a 35 W TDP with no power connectors and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), making it suitable for compact, battery-powered systems. Its 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while older than NVIDIA’s 12 nm TSMC node, enables a much smaller die (123 mm² versus 545 mm²) and far fewer transistors (3,000 million versus 13,600 million). The Radeon Pro 460’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 81.28 GB/s bandwidth — a fraction of the Quadro’s 416.0 GB/s — but it is sufficient for basic workstation tasks in a low-power envelope.

For users prioritizing compute density and API support, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear choice. It brings 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the Radeon Pro 460 lacks entirely. The Quadro also supports 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the Radeon’s capacity, which matters for large datasets. The Radeon Pro 460, with its 1:1 FP16 ratio (1.858 TFLOPS), offers no advantage in half-precision compute either — the Quadro’s FP16 is 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a sevenfold lead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 460 in every head-to-head benchmark by a margin exceeding 360%. For any professional workload involving 3D rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated compute, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior product. Its 387.7% lead in OpenCL and 368.9% lead in Vulkan leave no room for interpretation. The Quadro also benefits from a 61st percentile ranking among all GPUs, matching the Radeon Pro 460’s percentile but with a higher average score (17,789 versus 17,509).

However, the Radeon Pro 460 is not without a niche. Its 35 W TDP, integrated form factor, and lack of external power connectors make it the only viable option for ultra-portable workstations where space and thermal constraints preclude a single-slot, 160 W card like the Quadro. The Radeon Pro 460’s nearest rivals (Radeon Pro 560, Radeon 780M, RTX 4060) all score within 0.7% of it, indicating that it performs on par with integrated graphics solutions of its era. For users who need a dedicated GPU in a thin laptop, the Radeon Pro 460 serves a purpose that the Quadro cannot fill.

The verdict splits by use case. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 for any desktop workstation requiring maximum compute performance, ray tracing (36 RT cores), or AI acceleration (288 tensor cores). Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 460 only for a low-power, integrated solution where the Quadro’s physical dimensions and power requirements are non-negotiable. The Quadro’s launch MSRP is 899 USD; the Radeon Pro 460 has no listed launch MSRP, reflecting its OEM-focused integration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540, which is 387.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460’s 15,284.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has an average benchmark score of 17,789, while the Radeon Pro 460 averages 17,509. Both sit at the 61st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 416.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 460 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 460 has no RT cores or tensor cores, whereas the Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 uses a 12 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The Quadro has a 545 mm² die with 13,600 million transistors; the Radeon has a 123 mm² die with 3,000 million transistors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is built on the Turing architecture (chip TU104) using TSMC’s 12 nm process, packing 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The card features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with dedicated 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. Its FP32 compute is rated at 7.119 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). Clock speeds are 1005 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost, with memory running at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) across an 8 GB GDDR6 interface.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture (chip Baffin) on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (transistor density 24.4 million per mm²). It has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. FP32 and FP16 both rate at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). Base clock is 850 MHz, boost 907 MHz, and memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) across a 4 GB GDDR5 interface.

Other differences reinforce the generational gap. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro has a 160 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm. The Radeon Pro 460 is an IGP with a 35 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions, as it is designed for portable devices. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers three DisplayPort 1.4a ports and one USB Type-C, while the Radeon Pro 460’s outputs are described as portable-device-dependent. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and successor is Workstation Ampere; the Radeon Pro 460 has no listed predecessor or successor, indicating its isolated position in AMD’s product stack. The Quadro was released on 2018-11-12, while the Radeon Pro 460 came earlier on 2016-10-29. Both are end-of-life products.