AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 460 and the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, despite sharing a manufacturer. The RX 460 is an older, low-profile desktop part built for budget-oriented builds, while the Pro 5600M is a mobile workstation-class chip designed for Apple’s MacBook Pro line. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear performance gulf, but the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone. The RX 460 posts an average benchmark score of 18373, while the Pro 5600M averages 16351, yet the Pro 5600M wins every head-to-head test in the recorded data. This apparent contradiction is resolved by examining the specific workloads and the architectures behind each card.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins all three recorded comparisons. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 5600M scores 55030 against the RX 460’s 17065, a delta of -69% from the RX 460’s perspective, meaning the Pro 5600M is roughly 3.2 times faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5600M scores 47783 versus 17855, a -62.6% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5600M scores 46425 versus 20198, a -56.5% delta. Every win goes to the Pro 5600M, with a win tally of 3 to 0.

The RX 460’s advantage appears only in the aggregate benchmark average, where it reaches 18373 compared to the Pro 5600M’s 16351. This is because the Pro 5600M’s average is dragged down by additional tests in the database, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores of 118, 62, 59, and 39 respectively, plus a PassMark G2D score of 679 and a PassMark G3D score of 9279. The RX 460 has no recorded PassMark results, so its average is based solely on the three Geekbench tests, all of which are strong for its class. In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, the RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile, while the Pro 5600M sits at the 59th. So, for users focused purely on Geekbench-style compute workloads, the Pro 5600M is the clear winner, but the RX 460 holds a better overall standing in the database’s aggregate metric due to the uneven test coverage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The database does not list transistor count, die size, or density for the Pro 5600M.

Shader configuration differs substantially. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is roughly 2.9 times the shading units, 2.9 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. Clock speeds tell a different story: the RX 460 runs at a base of 1090 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, while the Pro 5600M runs at a much lower base of 822 MHz and a boost of 1144 MHz. The Pro 5600M compensates with far more compute units and a wider memory subsystem.

Memory is another major divide. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, with memory clocked at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective) for 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That is 3.5 times the bandwidth, 4 times the capacity, and a 16 times wider bus. Pixel fill rates follow: the RX 460 achieves 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s, while the Pro 5600M achieves 73.22 GPixel/s and 183.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.150 TFLOPS for the RX 460 versus 5.857 TFLOPS for the Pro 5600M. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on the RX 460 at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Pro 5600M doubles to 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

Power and physical design also differ. The RX 460 is rated at 75 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Pro 5600M is rated at 50 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The RX 460 is 170 mm (6.7 inches) long, while the Pro 5600M has no listed dimensions. The RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Pro 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the RX 460 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro 5600M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host laptop’s outputs.

API support is similar in version numbers but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Pro 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed. Production status for both is end-of-life. The RX 460 was released on 2016-08-07, while the Pro 5600M was released on 2020-06-14. The RX 460 lists its predecessor as Pirate Islands and successor as Polaris; the Pro 5600M lists neither.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M if your priority is raw compute performance in Geekbench-style tests, particularly Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan workloads. The data shows it beats the RX 460 by 56.5% to 69% in those three benchmarks, and it offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets. It also consumes less power, 50 W versus 75 W, and is built on a newer 7 nm process with a more modern RDNA 1.0 architecture. This card is clearly for mobile workstations where compute density and memory bandwidth matter more than legacy compatibility.

Pick the AMD Radeon RX 460 if you need a desktop card with standard display outputs, a compact 170 mm length, and a traditional slot form factor. It is the only one of the two with DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. It also has a better aggregate benchmark average, 18373 versus 16351, and a higher percentile ranking at 62 versus 59. The RX 460’s GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process are older, but it still supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. For a secondary display, a legacy system, or a low-power desktop build, the RX 460 is the practical choice. The Pro 5600M is not a drop-in desktop part; it is an IGP with no display outputs of its own.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 has a higher average benchmark score of 18373, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M’s 16351. However, the Pro 5600M wins every head-to-head test in the database, so the average is influenced by the Pro 5600M’s additional PassMark results.

Q: How much faster is the Pro 5600M in Geekbench Metal?

A: The Pro 5600M scores 55030 in Geekbench Metal, while the RX 460 scores 17065, a delta of -69% from the RX 460’s perspective. That makes the Pro 5600M roughly three times faster in this test.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Pro 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The Pro 5600M is rated at 50 W TDP, while the RX 460 is rated at 75 W TDP. The Pro 5600M also uses a 7 nm process, whereas the RX 460 uses a 14 nm process.

Q: Are there any display outputs on the Pro 5600M?

A: The database lists the Pro 5600M’s display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it has no fixed outputs and relies on the host laptop. The RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the Pro 5600M comes in Geekbench Metal. The Pro 5600M posts 55030, against the RX 460’s 17065, a -69% delta. This test typically stresses compute and graphics throughput, and the Pro 5600M’s 2560 shading units and 5.857 TFLOPS FP32 performance dominate the RX 460’s 896 shading units and 2.150 TFLOPS. The memory bandwidth difference, 394.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s, also plays a role in Metal’s memory-heavy workloads.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern. The Pro 5600M scores 47783, while the RX 460 scores 17855, a -62.6% delta. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose GPU compute, and the Pro 5600M’s higher TMU count (160 versus 56) and ROP count (64 versus 16) contribute to better texture and pixel throughput. The RX 460’s texture rate is 67.20 GTexel/s, while the Pro 5600M reaches 183.0 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are 19.20 GPixel/s versus 73.22 GPixel/s.

Geekbench Vulkan is the closest of the three, but still a decisive win for the Pro 5600M. The Pro 5600M scores 46425, while the RX 460 scores 20198, a -56.5% delta. Vulkan’s lower overhead tends to favor architectures with better driver efficiency, and RDNA 1.0 on the Pro 5600M appears to extract more from its hardware than GCN 4.0 on the RX 460. The RX 460’s FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Pro 5600M doubles its FP16 to 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1), which can help in shader workloads that use half-precision math.

The RX 460 has no recorded PassMark results, so no head-to-head comparison exists for those tests. The Pro 5600M’s PassMark scores are notably low in DirectX 9 (118), DirectX 10 (62), DirectX 11 (59), and DirectX 12 (39), which suggests its driver stack or hardware is optimized for compute and Metal rather than legacy DirectX rasterization. Its PassMark G3D score of 9279 and GPU compute score of 4031 are more representative of its compute strengths. The RX 460’s higher average benchmark score is therefore a function of which tests are available, not an indication that it outperforms the Pro 5600M in any recorded direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification difference is the memory subsystem. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth. The bus width difference is 16 times, and bandwidth is 3.5 times higher on the Pro 5600M. Memory clock also differs: the RX 460 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Pro 5600M runs at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective), but the wider bus more than compensates.

Compute unit counts differ significantly. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro 5600M also leads in pixel rate, 73.22 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate, 183.0 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.857 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput is 11.71 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS.

Process node and foundry differ: the RX 460 uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, while the Pro 5600M uses 7 nm at TSMC. The RX 460 has a listed die size of 123 mm² and 3,000 million transistors, with a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The Pro 5600M has no listed die size, transistor count, or density. Power ratings favor the Pro 5600M at 50 W TDP versus 75 W for the RX 460. The RX 460 is dual-slot, 170 mm long, and has a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 5600M is an IGP with no dimensions or PSU suggestion. The RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Pro 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are present on the RX 460 (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) but are portable-device-dependent on the Pro 5600M. Release dates are 2016-08-07 for the RX 460 and 2020-06-14 for the Pro 5600M. Neither has a launch MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.