AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell represent two extremes of the GPU spectrum, separated by nearly a decade of technological progress. The data shows a stark contrast: the Pro 460 is a 2016 mobile integrated part, while the RTX PRO 6000 is a 2025 flagship workstation accelerator. Their average benchmark scores, however, tell a surprisingly nuanced story, with the Pro 460 posting an average score of 17,509 against the RTX PRO 6000's 16,408, despite the latter's overwhelming specification advantage in nearly every measurable category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head comparisons are limited because the two cards were tested under different benchmark suites. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 was evaluated using Geekbench tests, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell was assessed with 3DMark Steel Nomad. The Pro 460 achieves 20,426 in Geekbench Metal, 15,284 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 16,816 in Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX PRO 6000 scores 16,408 in 3DMark's Steel Nomad DX12 test. These are not directly comparable metrics, but the average scores place the Pro 460 slightly ahead, with a 1,101-point difference.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides more context. The Pro 460's average score of 17,509 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468) and 0.5% below the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588). It is also 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639). The RTX PRO 6000's average of 16,408 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415, 0% delta) and within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361). It sits 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504). The data indicates that despite the massive generational gap, the Pro 460 holds its own in synthetic compute workloads that favor its architecture.

The most significant wins for the Pro 460 come in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 20,426, which is 24.9% higher than its OpenCL score of 15,284. This suggests strong optimization for Apple's Metal API, given the card's "Radeon Pro Mac" generation designation. The RTX PRO 6000's single 3DMark score of 16,408 reflects a modern DirectX 12 workload, a test the older card was never subjected to. The disparity in test types means the data cannot support a definitive winner in raw performance, but it does show that the Pro 460's compute capabilities are not obsolete in synthetic benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average benchmark score of 17,509, which is higher than the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell's average of 16,408, a difference of 1,101 points.

Q: How does the RTX PRO 6000 compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The RTX PRO 6000's average score of 16,408 is essentially identical to the AMD Radeon PRO W7500's 16,415, showing a 0% delta.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Pro 460 and the GeForce RTX 4060?

A: The Pro 460's average score of 17,509 is 0.7% lower than the GeForce RTX 4060's 17,639, indicating a very narrow margin.

Q: Does the RTX PRO 6000 outperform the RX 5700 XT?

A: Yes, the RTX PRO 6000's 16,408 average score is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT's 16,361.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a percentile rank of 61, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a percentile rank of 59.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Pro 460 in average score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40c is the closest rival, with an average score of 17,468, just 0.2% below the Pro 460's 17,509.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins in scenarios that leverage the Geekbench suite, particularly Metal-based applications. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,426 is the highest of its three benchmarks, suggesting a clear strength in Apple ecosystem workloads. The card's 61st percentile ranking also edges out the RTX PRO 6000's 59th percentile, indicating that in the broader database, the Pro 460 sits slightly higher relative to all GPUs. The Pro 460's nearest rivals include the Tesla K40c and Radeon Pro 560, showing it competes in a legacy compute tier.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell wins in modern DirectX 12 workloads, as evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 16,408. This test is specifically designed for DX12, and the card's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) gives it a distinct advantage in contemporary gaming and professional applications. The RTX PRO 6000 also wins in terms of production status, being listed as "Active" while the Pro 460 is "End-of-life." For users requiring current driver support and future-proofing, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only viable option.

The data further shows that the RTX PRO 6000's nearest rivals are modern cards like the Radeon PRO W7500 and RTX 5090 D V2, whereas the Pro 460 is grouped with older parts like the Tesla K40c and Radeon Pro 560. This suggests that the Pro 460's wins are confined to legacy compute and specific API optimizations, while the RTX PRO 6000's wins are in forward-looking workloads. The lack of overlapping benchmark tests prevents a direct comparison, but each card's respective strengths are clear within its own test ecosystem.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between these two GPUs is immense. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell offers 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, with bandwidth reaching 1.79 TB/s. This represents a 24x increase in memory capacity and a 22x increase in bandwidth. The Pro 460's memory clock is 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the RTX PRO 6000 runs at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective).

The shading units differ dramatically: the Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RTX PRO 6000 has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The RTX PRO 6000 also includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Pro 460. Pixel rate and texture rate scale accordingly: 14.51 GPixel/s versus 502.5 GPixel/s, and 58.05 GTexel/s versus 1,968.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.858 TFLOPS for the Pro 460 versus 126.0 TFLOPS for the RTX PRO 6000, a 68x difference.

Clock speeds also differ, with the Pro 460 running at 850 MHz base and 907 MHz boost, while the RTX PRO 6000 runs at 1590 MHz base and 2617 MHz boost. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Pro 460 versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RTX PRO 6000. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Pro 460, while the RTX PRO 6000 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1b. The Pro 460 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the RTX PRO 6000 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 1000 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is a study in contrasts. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is built on the Baffin chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M / mm². The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell uses the GB202 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, achieving a density of 122.9M / mm². The transistor count is over 30 times higher, and density is 5 times greater.

The Pro 460 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation, while the RTX PRO 6000 is part of the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation. The Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX PRO 6000's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, aligning with its RT and tensor core hardware. The Pro 460 has no such specialized cores.

The RTX PRO 6000's predecessor is listed as Workstation Ada, indicating a direct lineage in NVIDIA's professional line. The Pro 460 has no predecessor or successor listed. The production status differs: the Pro 460 is end-of-life, while the RTX PRO 6000 is active. The release dates are 2016-10-29 for the Pro 460 and 2025-03-17 for the RTX PRO 6000, a gap of over eight years. The process node shrunk from 14 nm to 5 nm, and the foundry shifted from GlobalFoundries to TSMC.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload era and platform. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the pick for legacy Apple Mac systems, given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation designation and superior Geekbench Metal performance of 20,426. Its integrated form factor and 35 W TDP make it suitable for portable devices, and its 61st percentile ranking shows it remains competitive in synthetic compute. Users with older Mac Pro or iMac systems seeking a known-quantity upgrade path would find this card's profile acceptable, though its end-of-life status limits long-term viability.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is the definitive choice for modern professional workstations. Its 96 GB of GDDR7 memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are unmatched, and its 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the Pro 460 cannot attempt. The card's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility ensure it meets current software requirements. Its active production status and 2025 release date mean it will receive ongoing driver support. The suggested 1000 W PSU and dual-slot form factor indicate a desktop-only solution, but the performance envelope justifies the power requirements.

The benchmark data, while not directly comparable due to different test suites, shows the Pro 460 holding a slight edge in average score (17,509 vs 16,408). This reflects the synthetic nature of Geekbench, which favors the Pro 460's compute configuration. However, the RTX PRO 6000's single 3DMark score of 16,408 in a modern DX12 workload suggests its real-world performance in current applications is far superior. For anyone building a new workstation, the RTX PRO 6000 is the rational choice. For those maintaining legacy Apple systems, the Pro 460 remains a functional, if dated, option. The data ultimately shows that these cards serve entirely different markets and eras, and the choice depends entirely on the user's platform and software requirements.