AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records three direct comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 460 and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500, and the Pro W5500 wins every single test. The margin is substantial across all three workloads, but the size of the gap varies significantly by API.

In Geekbench Metal, the Pro W5500 scores 54,302 against the RX 460's 17,065. That is a 68.6% advantage for the Pro W5500, the largest delta in the head-to-head set. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the data suggests the Pro W5500's architecture handles it far more efficiently. The RX 460 trails by more than two-thirds, which is not a close contest by any measure.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar but slightly narrower gap. The Pro W5500 records 45,615, while the RX 460 manages 17,855. The delta is 60.9% in favor of the Pro W5500. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this result indicates the Pro W5500's compute throughput is dramatically higher, consistent with its larger shader count and faster memory subsystem.

Geekbench Vulkan is the closest of the three, but still a decisive win for the Pro W5500. It scores 42,021 against the RX 460's 20,198, a 51.9% lead. Vulkan is a low-level rendering API that tends to reward raw hardware capabilities, and even here the RX 460 cannot close the gap. The delta shrinks from 68.6% to 51.9% across the three tests, suggesting the RX 460 is relatively less disadvantaged in Vulkan workloads, but it remains far behind.

The overall win count is 3 to 0 in favor of the Pro W5500. No benchmark in the database shows the RX 460 ahead in any direct comparison. The average benchmark score for the RX 460 is 18,373, while the Pro W5500's average is 15,679, a curious inversion. The Pro W5500 wins every head-to-head test, yet its average score across all recorded benchmarks is lower. This is because the Pro W5500's average includes a broader set of tests, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores that are relatively low (ranging from 39 to 126), which drag down its overall average. The RX 460 only has Geekbench scores in the database, so its average reflects only those three strong showings.

The percentile rankings tell a more nuanced story. The RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile against all GPUs, while the Pro W5500 sits at the 58th percentile. Despite losing every head-to-head matchup, the RX 460 is ranked higher relative to the entire GPU population. This is a reminder that percentile ranks are computed across different benchmark sets, and the Pro W5500's Passmark results pull its percentile down even though it dominates the specific tests shared with the RX 460.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins decisively. It scores 54,302, which is 68.6% higher than the RX 460's 17,065.

Q: Is the RX 460 competitive in any shared benchmark?

A: No. The Pro W5500 wins all three shared tests. The closest margin is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro W5500 leads by 51.9%, still a massive gap.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare between the two?

A: The RX 460 has a higher average score at 18,373, versus 15,679 for the Pro W5500. This is because the Pro W5500's average includes low Passmark DirectX scores, while the RX 460 only has Geekbench results recorded.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking against all GPUs?

A: The RX 460 ranks at the 62nd percentile, while the Pro W5500 ranks at the 58th percentile. The RX 460 is ranked higher despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: The closest is Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro W5500 leads by 51.9%. The widest margin is Geekbench Metal at 68.6%.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the RX 460 wins?

A: In the database, no. The head-to-head record is 0 wins for the RX 460 and 3 wins for the Pro W5500.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Arctic Islands generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is 24.4 million per mm². The Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. It is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, packing 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, for a density of 40.5 million per mm². The Pro W5500 has more than double the transistor count and a significantly higher density, which contributes to its performance advantage.

The compute resources differ substantially. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Pro W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 57% more shading units, 57% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. These raw counts explain why the Pro W5500 achieves higher pixel and texture rates. The RX 460 records 19.20 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s, while the Pro W5500 records 59.36 GPixel/s and 163.2 GTexel/s. The Pro W5500 is 3.1 times faster in pixel rate and 2.4 times faster in texture rate.

Clock speeds also favor the Pro W5500. Its base clock is 1,744 MHz with a boost of 1,855 MHz, while the RX 460 runs at 1,090 MHz base and 1,200 MHz boost. The Pro W5500's boost clock is 54.6% higher. Combined with more shaders, this produces a large FP32 throughput gap: 5.224 TFLOPS for the Pro W5500 versus 2.150 TFLOPS for the RX 460. The Pro W5500 is 2.4 times faster in single-precision compute. FP16 performance is even more skewed. The RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Pro W5500 delivers 10.45 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. That is a 4.9 times advantage for the Pro W5500 in half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture shows clear generational progress. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 1750 MHz memory clock and 7 Gbps effective speed, yielding 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but the memory clock runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, doubling bandwidth to 224.0 GB/s. Capacity is four times higher, and bandwidth is exactly double. The Pro W5500 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which doubles the available bus bandwidth for data transfers.

API support differs slightly. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Pro W5500 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Pro W5500's newer DirectX feature level and Vulkan version reflect its later release. Power requirements scale with performance: the RX 460 has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the Pro W5500 has a 125 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Pro W5500 is a single-slot card at 241 mm length, while the RX 460 is dual-slot at 170 mm.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 460 in every recorded benchmark that compares them directly. In Geekbench Metal, it leads by 68.6%. In OpenCL, the lead is 60.9%. In Vulkan, it is 51.9%. If the task is raw performance in these APIs, the Pro W5500 is the clear choice.

The RX 460 does have one statistical advantage: its percentile rank against all GPUs is 62, compared to the Pro W5500's 58. This is driven by the Pro W5500's weak Passmark DirectX scores, which range from 39 to 126. But those tests are not shared with the RX 460, so they do not factor into the head-to-head comparison. In the three tests where both cards have scores, the RX 460 loses every time.

For users who need compute throughput, the Pro W5500 delivers 5.224 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.150 TFLOPS, and 10.45 TFLOPS FP16 versus 2.150 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is double at 224.0 GB/s, and capacity is 8 GB versus 2 GB. The Pro W5500 also supports PCIe 4.0, which matters for data-heavy workloads. The RX 460 is an older, end-of-life entry-level card with a lower power draw of 75 W, which might appeal to systems with strict power limits, but it cannot match the Pro W5500's performance.

The verdict is straightforward: the Pro W5500 is the better GPU on all measured dimensions. It wins every shared benchmark, has superior architecture, more compute resources, faster clocks, and more memory. The only reason to pick the RX 460 is if the 75 W TDP is an absolute constraint, since the Pro W5500 requires 125 W and a 6-pin connector. Otherwise, the recorded data favors the Pro W5500 without exception.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 460 | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

|---------------|-------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1090 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 56 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.20 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.20 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.150 TFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 170 mm (6.7 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-08-07 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not available | 399 USD |