AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 460 and AMD Radeon Pro 560 are both built on the same GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process, yet benchmark results show a clear split in their strengths. The RX 460 wins two of three head-to-head tests, taking decisive victories in OpenCL and Vulkan, while the Pro 560 counters with a substantial win in Metal. The average benchmark scores place the RX 460 slightly ahead at 18,373 versus 17,551 for the Pro 560, a difference of roughly 4.7%. The RX 460 also holds a marginally higher percentile ranking at 62 compared to the Pro 560's 61, indicating that despite the Pro 560's Metal advantage, the RX 460 edges ahead in overall synthetic performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the head-to-head comparison comes from the Vulkan test, where the RX 460 scores 20,198 against the Pro 560's 16,232. This represents a 24.4% advantage for the RX 460, the largest delta of any test in the comparison. In OpenCL, the RX 460 continues its lead, posting 17,855 versus 15,504 for the Pro 560, a 15.2% margin. These two wins give the RX 460 a clear performance edge in cross-platform compute workloads, particularly those that leverage Vulkan's modern API features.

The Pro 560, however, dominates the Metal benchmark, scoring 20,918 compared to the RX 460's 17,065. This is an 18.4% advantage for the Pro 560, and it is the only test where the Pro 560 comes out ahead. The magnitude of this victory is notable, as it nearly offsets the RX 460's Vulkan win in terms of raw points difference. The Metal result aligns with the Pro 560's positioning within the Radeon Pro Mac series, suggesting an optimization toward Apple's graphics API ecosystem.

When examining the nearest rivals for each card, the performance context becomes clearer. The RX 460's average score of 18,373 places it within 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189). It trails the AMD FirePro D500 (18,533) by 0.9% and the Intel Arc A770M (18,383) by a negligible 0.1%. The Pro 560's average of 17,551 sits 0.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468), while falling 0.2% short of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588) and 0.5% short of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639). These data points show that both cards are clustered tightly within a narrow performance band, with the RX 460 holding a slight overall edge.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in the Metal benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 wins decisively in Metal, scoring 20,918 against the RX 460's 17,065. This gives the Pro 560 an 18.4% advantage in this specific test.

Q: Does the RX 460 have any benchmark where it wins by a wide margin?

A: Yes, the RX 460 wins the Vulkan test by 24.4%, scoring 20,198 versus the Pro 560's 16,232. It also wins OpenCL by 15.2%, with scores of 17,855 and 15,504 respectively.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each card?

A: The RX 460 has an average benchmark score of 18,373, while the Pro 560 averages 17,551. The RX 460 leads by approximately 822 points.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in terms of average score?

A: The RX 460 is essentially tied with the Intel Arc A770M, trailing by 0.1%, and sits 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile. The Pro 560 is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon 780M and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060.

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

A: The RX 460 ranks at the 62nd percentile, while the Pro 560 ranks at the 61st percentile. This indicates the RX 460 sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: In how many head-to-head tests does each card come out as the winner?

A: The RX 460 wins two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the Pro 560 wins one test (Metal).

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture, built on GCN 4.0 and fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Each contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in an identical transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The chips differ by name, with the RX 460 using the Baffin chip and the Pro 560 using Polaris 21, but the underlying architecture generation is the same. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, offering identical API feature sets.

The compute resources differ meaningfully between the two cards. The Pro 560 packs 1,024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, while the RX 460 has 896 shading units and 56 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. This gives the Pro 560 a 14.3% advantage in shading units and a 14.3% advantage in TMUs. However, the RX 460 compensates with higher clock speeds, which changes the actual throughput characteristics.

Memory configurations also diverge. The RX 460 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Pro 560 doubles that to 4 GB. Both use a 128-bit memory bus. The RX 460's memory runs at 1750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, yielding a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The Pro 560's memory runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective speed, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. This represents a 27.4% bandwidth advantage for the RX 460, despite the Pro 560 having twice the capacity.

Clock speeds are a critical differentiator, though the Pro 560's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The RX 460 runs at a base clock of 1090 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The Pro 560's memory clock is also lower, contributing to its reduced bandwidth. The RX 460 achieves higher pixel and texture rates, with 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s respectively, compared to the Pro 560's 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s. These differences align with the RX 460's higher clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications. Memory capacity differs, with the RX 460 offering 2 GB and the Pro 560 offering 4 GB. Memory clock speed is another point of contrast, as the RX 460 runs at 1750 MHz while the Pro 560 runs at 1270 MHz. Effective memory speed follows the same pattern, with 7 Gbps for the RX 460 and 5.1 Gbps for the Pro 560. This leads to a bandwidth gap, as the RX 460 delivers 112.0 GB/s versus the Pro 560's 81.28 GB/s.

Shading unit counts differ, with the RX 460 having 896 and the Pro 560 having 1,024. Texture mapping units also differ, with 56 on the RX 460 and 64 on the Pro 560. The pixel rate is higher on the RX 460 at 19.20 GPixel/s compared to 14.51 GPixel/s on the Pro 560. Texture rate similarly favors the RX 460, which achieves 67.20 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s. FP32 performance also favors the RX 460, which delivers 2.150 TFLOPS compared to 1.858 TFLOPS on the Pro 560.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The RX 460 is a dual-slot card with a length of 170 mm (6.7 inches), while the Pro 560 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed dimensions. Both cards have no external power connectors and a TDP of 75 W. The RX 460 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Pro 560 has no suggested PSU value. Display outputs differ as well, with the RX 460 featuring 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro 560's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." The RX 460 is part of the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation with a release date of 2016-08-07, while the Pro 560 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation with a release date of 2017-04-17. The RX 460 lists its predecessor as Pirate Islands and successor as Polaris, while the Pro 560 lists neither.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 460 wins in scenarios that prioritize raw compute throughput and modern API utilization. Its Vulkan score of 20,198 is 24.4% higher than the Pro 560's, making it the stronger choice for Vulkan-based applications and games. The OpenCL advantage of 15.2% also positions the RX 460 favorably for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL. The RX 460's higher bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, combined with its faster pixel and texture rates, suggests it handles memory-intensive workloads more efficiently. Its higher FP32 performance of 2.150 TFLOPS further supports compute-heavy use cases.

The Pro 560 wins in Metal-specific environments, where its score of 20,918 represents an 18.4% advantage over the RX 460. This makes it the preferred option for applications built on Apple's Metal API, which is common in macOS ecosystems. The Pro 560's doubling of memory capacity to 4 GB provides an advantage in scenarios where larger datasets must be held in VRAM, even though the bandwidth is lower. Its higher shading unit count of 1,024 versus 896 may also benefit workloads that scale with shader core count rather than clock speed. The Pro 560's IGP form factor is designed for portable devices, making it suitable for integrated systems where a discrete dual-slot card like the RX 460 would not fit.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance split based on workload. Users prioritizing cross-platform compute and modern graphics APIs should choose the AMD Radeon RX 460, as it wins two of three head-to-head benchmarks and holds a higher average score of 18,373. Its Vulkan and OpenCL advantages are substantial, and its higher bandwidth and clock speeds contribute to a 2.150 TFLOPS FP32 result that outperforms the Pro 560's 1.858 TFLOPS. The RX 460's 62nd percentile ranking, higher than the Pro 560's 61st, reinforces its overall performance lead.

Users operating within Apple's Metal ecosystem should select the AMD Radeon Pro 560, which delivers a commanding 20,918 Metal score. The Pro 560's 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the RX 460, providing a meaningful advantage for memory-constrained workloads. Its identical 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a viable option for portable devices, while the RX 460's dual-slot design and 170 mm length require more physical space. The Pro 560 trails in average score and percentile, but its Metal optimization and larger memory pool define its specific use case. For a general-purpose graphics card, the RX 460 offers the better balance of performance metrics; for Metal-centric workflows, the Pro 560 is the data-supported choice.