AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive, across-the-board victory for the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT in every test where both cards appear. The most striking result is in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, where the Pro 5700 XT scores 59,467 against the RX 460's 17,855, a delta of 233.1%. This is the largest margin of the three shared tests and reflects the enormous gap in raw compute throughput between the two architectures. The Geekbench Metal test tells a similar story: the Pro 5700 XT posts 51,272 versus 17,065 for the RX 460, a 200.5% advantage. Even the closest result, Geekbench Vulkan, still leaves the RX 460 trailing by 180.2%, with scores of 56,593 and 20,198 respectively.

It is worth remembering the RX 460's best absolute score in any shared benchmark is its Vulkan result of 20,198, which is still less than half of the Pro 5700 XT's lowest shared score of 51,272 in Metal. The data shows no single test where the RX 460 manages to close the gap to within even a factor of two. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural chasm.

The deltaPct values align with the aggregate benchmark picture. The Pro 5700 XT's average benchmark score of 18,685 places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18,789). The RX 460's average of 18,373 is nearly identical, sitting 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A770M (18,383) and 1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189). Both cards occupy a similar percentile band — the Pro 5700 XT at the 63rd percentile and the RX 460 at the 62nd — which underscores that while they share a performance tier in aggregate terms, their individual benchmark profiles diverge sharply on modern compute workloads.

The Pro 5700 XT also has a broader benchmark footprint, with results across PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute. Its PassMark G3D score of 12,547 and GPU Compute score of 5,787 are not directly comparable to the RX 460, which lacks those entries, but they reinforce the picture of a card that is substantially more capable in compute-heavy tasks. The RX 460's absence from those tests means the head-to-head comparison is limited to three Geekbench entries, but those three are sufficient to establish a clear hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins all three shared benchmarks — Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan — giving it a 3-0 record against the RX 460.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro 5700 XT scores 59,467 versus 17,855 for the RX 460, a 233.1% difference.

Q: How close are the two cards in average benchmark score?

A: The Pro 5700 XT averages 18,685, while the RX 460 averages 18,373. The Pro 5700 XT is about 1.7% higher in aggregate, despite its massive lead in individual compute tests.

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

A: The Pro 5700 XT sits at the 63rd percentile, one point above the RX 460's 62nd percentile.

Q: Does the RX 460 have any benchmark where it approaches the Pro 5700 XT?

A: No. The smallest margin is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro 5700 XT still leads by 180.2%. The RX 460's best score (20,198) is below the Pro 5700 XT's worst shared score (51,272).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card in aggregate score?

A: The Pro 5700 XT's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, delta 0.3%), while the RX 460's closest rival is the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, delta -0.1%).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The Pro 5700 XT is built on RDNA 1.0 using the Navi 10 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The RX 460 uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. This process difference is stark: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which translates into a transistor density of 41.0 million per mm² for the Pro 5700 XT versus 24.4 million per mm² for the RX 460. The Pro 5700 XT packs 10,300 million transistors onto a 251 mm² die, while the RX 460 manages 3,000 million on a 123 mm² die.

The compute resources are similarly lopsided. The Pro 5700 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and just 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 95.94 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 239.8 GTexel/s for the Pro 5700 XT, versus 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s for the RX 460. Floating-point performance tells the same tale: the Pro 5700 XT delivers 7.675 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.35 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RX 460's FP16 capability is effectively identical to its FP32 throughput, whereas the Pro 5700 XT doubles its FP16 rate.

Memory subsystems are also generations apart. The Pro 5700 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s. The Pro 5700 XT's memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the RX 460's is 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Clock speeds for the GPU cores are closer: the Pro 5700 XT runs at 1243 MHz base and 1499 MHz boost, while the RX 460 runs at 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The Pro 5700 XT's higher clocks, combined with its far larger execution units, explain the benchmark dominance.

API support differs slightly. The Pro 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The difference in DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0) and Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3) reflects the newer architecture's more advanced feature set.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the superior card in every measurable way within this comparison. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks by margins ranging from 180.2% to 233.1%. Its compute resources, memory bandwidth, and process node are all dramatically ahead. The RX 460's only consolation is that its aggregate average score (18,373) is close to the Pro 5700 XT's (18,685), but that proximity is misleading — it stems from the RX 460's narrower benchmark set, not from competitive performance on any individual workload.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. If the task involves modern compute-heavy applications — particularly those using Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan — the Pro 5700 XT is the only rational choice. Its 16 GB GDDR6 memory and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom that the RX 460's 2 GB GDDR5 and 112.0 GB/s cannot approach. The Pro 5700 XT also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the RX 460 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, which matters for data transfer in professional workflows.

The RX 460's strengths are limited to its physical footprint and power profile. It is a dual-slot card with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring only a 250 W suggested PSU. The Pro 5700 XT, by contrast, is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no outputs, a 130 W TDP, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The RX 460 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Pro 5700 XT has none. For a system that needs a simple, low-power, display-capable card, the RX 460 serves a purpose. For anything else, the Pro 5700 XT dominates.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The Pro 5700 XT uses a Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the RX 460 uses Baffin on GCN 4.0. The process node is 7 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts are 10,300 million versus 3,000 million; die sizes are 251 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 41.0M/mm² versus 24.4M/mm².

Clock speeds: the Pro 5700 XT has a 1243 MHz base and 1499 MHz boost, versus 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost for the RX 460. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory configurations: 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the Pro 5700 XT; 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the RX 460. Pixel rates are 95.94 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s; texture rates are 239.8 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32 is 7.675 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS; FP16 is 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specs: the Pro 5700 XT has a 130 W TDP, is IGP slot width, has no power connectors, and requires a 300 W PSU. The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, is dual-slot, has no power connectors, and requires a 250 W PSU. The Pro 5700 XT has no display outputs; the RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro 5700 XT is PCIe 4.0 x16; the RX 460 is PCIe 3.0 x8. The RX 460 has a length of 170 mm (6.7 inches); the Pro 5700 XT has no listed dimensions. API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Release dates: the Pro 5700 XT launched August 3, 2020; the RX 460 launched August 7, 2016.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins in every compute-oriented category. Its 233.1% lead in OpenCL, 200.5% lead in Metal, and 180.2% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for any application leveraging those APIs. Its 7.675 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.35 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, position it for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 16 GB memory capacity is particularly relevant for workloads that exceed the RX 460's 2 GB limit. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides double the lane bandwidth of the RX 460's PCIe 3.0 x8, reducing transfer bottlenecks in professional pipelines.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins in scenarios that prioritize low power and physical integration. Its 75 W TDP is nearly half the Pro 5700 XT's 130 W, and its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is lower than the 300 W for the Pro 5700 XT. The RX 460's dual-slot form factor and inclusion of display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) make it a functional standalone card for a desktop system. The Pro 5700 XT, being an IGP with no outputs, cannot drive a display directly. The RX 460's 170 mm length also makes it suitable for compact cases, whereas the Pro 5700 XT has no listed dimensions. For a secondary machine, a media PC, or a basic workstation requiring modest graphics with a low power draw, the RX 460 is the more practical option. For raw performance, the Pro 5700 XT wins without qualification.