GPU Comparison

# The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous outcome: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation outscores the AMD Radeon Pro 460 in every shared benchmark, with margins exceeding 390%. The RTX 2000 Ada delivers 78,074 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 15,284 for the Radeon Pro 460, a 410.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card scores 83,360 against 16,816, a 395.7% lead. The Radeon Pro 460's only unique benchmark, Geekbench Metal, yields 20,426, which does not offset its overall deficit. The RTX 2000 Ada also holds a higher average benchmark score of 18,954 compared to 17,509, and sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs versus the Radeon Pro 460's 61st percentile. For any workload requiring compute or graphics acceleration, the RTX 2000 Ada is the clear choice from this dataset. The Radeon Pro 460, however, remains relevant only for legacy Mac systems requiring an integrated form factor with a 35 W power envelope, where its IGP design and Portable Device Dependent display outputs are structural advantages.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². It belongs to the Ada Lovelace architecture, specifically the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation, and is the successor to Workstation Ampere with the successor listed as Blackwell PRO W. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, containing 3,000 million transistors across a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4M per mm². It is based on GCN 4.0 architecture and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation, released in 2016. The RTX 2000 Ada features 2,816 shading units, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 22 RT cores, and 88 tensor cores, enabling hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration. The Radeon Pro 460 offers 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores present. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 2000 Ada's 5 nm node and dedicated RT/tensor hardware represent a generational leap, while the Radeon Pro 460's GCN architecture lacks those specialized units entirely.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark results illustrate a massive performance gap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 78,074 against the Radeon Pro 460's 15,284, yielding a 410.8% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This reflects the combined effect of a newer architecture, higher clock speeds (1620 MHz base / 2130 MHz boost versus 850 MHz base / 907 MHz boost), and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB of GDDR5 with 81.28 GB/s. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360 versus 16,816, a 395.7% advantage. The NVIDIA card's Vulkan 1.4 support and higher raw compute throughput (12.00 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.858 TFLOPS FP32) explain this dominance. The Radeon Pro 460's only additional benchmark, Geekbench Metal, records 20,426; no comparable Metal score exists for the RTX 2000 Ada, so this cannot be directly compared, but it does not change the overall win count of 2–0 in favor of NVIDIA. The RTX 2000 Ada also has a higher PassMark G3D score of 16,927 and PassMark GPU Compute score of 7,834, while the Radeon Pro 460 has no PassMark results in the pack.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The RTX 2000 Ada uses a 5 nm process; the Radeon Pro 460 uses 14 nm. Transistor count is 18,900 million versus 3,000 million. Die size is 159 mm² versus 123 mm². Base clock is 1620 MHz versus 850 MHz; boost clock is 2130 MHz versus 907 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Memory size is 16 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR5. Bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. Shading units are 2,816 versus 1,024; TMUs are 88 versus 64; ROPs are 48 versus 16; RT cores are 22 versus null; tensor cores are 88 versus null. Pixel rate is 102.2 GPixel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 187.4 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 compute are both 12.00 TFLOPS versus 1.858 TFLOPS. TDP is 70 W versus 35 W. Slot width is Dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are None for both, but the suggested PSU is 250 W for NVIDIA and null for AMD. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus Portable Device Dependent. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. The RTX 2000 Ada is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall; the Radeon Pro 460 has no listed dimensions. The RTX 2000 Ada is Active in production with a release date of 2024-02-11; the Radeon Pro 460 is End-of-life with a release date of 2016-10-29.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 18,954, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 has 17,509. The NVIDIA card also ranks at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 61st percentile for the AMD card.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360 versus 16,816 for the Radeon Pro 460, a 395.7% difference. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the Radeon Pro 460 wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX 2000 Ada wins both. The Radeon Pro 460 has a unique Geekbench Metal score of 20,426, but no comparable Metal score exists for the NVIDIA card in the data.

Q: What is the difference in compute power?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, while the Radeon Pro 460 delivers 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16. The NVIDIA card also has 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada has a 70 W TDP and lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The Radeon Pro 460 has a 35 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. Both require no power connectors.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins decisively in compute-heavy and graphics-intensive workloads. Its 410.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it suitable for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference, especially given its 22 RT cores for ray tracing and 88 tensor cores for AI tasks. The 16 GB GDDR6 frame buffer with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-resolution textures, while the 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-monitor professional setups. Its 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU allow integration into compact workstation builds, and its Active production status ensures ongoing availability.

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins only in niche scenarios defined by its form factor and power envelope. As an IGP with a 35 W TDP, it is designed for portable devices, as indicated by its Portable Device Dependent display outputs. It requires no power connector and has no suggested PSU, making it suitable for systems where space and thermal limits are extreme. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 indicates some Apple ecosystem compatibility, given its Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation. However, with only 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 1.858 TFLOPS FP32, it cannot handle modern professional workloads. Its End-of-life production status and 2016 release date mean it is only relevant for legacy Mac systems. For any user choosing between these two based on benchmark data, the RTX 2000 Ada is the only viable option for performance; the Radeon Pro 460 is a fallback only when the system physically cannot accommodate a dual-slot, 168 mm card.