AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The result is a decisive victory for the AMD card. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 points, while the GTX 460 manages 7,925 points. This represents a delta of 205.6%, meaning the AMD card is roughly three times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is so large that it defines the entire head-to-head narrative; there is no benchmark in the database where the GTX 460 takes a win.

Looking at the broader database context, the WX 5100's average benchmark score is 8,863, which places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (average score 8,851, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, delta -0.6%), and notably the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, delta 1.3%). The GTX 460, by contrast, has an average score of 7,925 and sits in the 41st percentile, with closest competition from the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M (7,906, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039, delta -1.4%). The percentile gap, though only three points, aligns with the raw score difference.

The OpenCL result is not an outlier in terms of the cards' overall positions. The WX 5100's other benchmark entries show a wide range: it scores 29,003 in Geekbench Metal, 26,909 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 5,496 in Passmark G3D, with a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,053. The GTX 460, however, only has the single OpenCL entry in the database, which limits direct statistical comparison but does not change the conclusion: in the one test where both cards appear, the AMD part is overwhelmingly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and entirely different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, and is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip, based on the Fermi architecture from the GeForce 400 generation. It is built on a much older 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, giving a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The process node difference alone (14 nm versus 40 nm) explains why the AMD chip packs nearly three times as many transistors into a smaller physical area.

Core configuration differs sharply. The WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The AMD card has more than five times the shading units and twice the texture units, while its ROP count is only a third higher. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the WX 5100 runs at a base of 713 MHz with a boost of 1,086 MHz, whereas the GTX 460 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The AMD card's memory runs at 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory subsystems are in different leagues. The WX 5100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 provides only 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 86.40 GB/s. That is nearly double the bandwidth for the AMD card, and 10.7 times the frame buffer capacity. In terms of raw throughput numbers, the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and an equal 3.892 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 460 manages 907.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and has no FP16 capability listed. Pixel rate for the AMD card is 34.75 GPixel/s and texture rate is 121.6 GTexel/s; the GTX 460's rates are 9.450 GPixel/s and 37.80 GTexel/s, respectively.

Power and physical design also diverge. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, is dual-slot, needs two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The AMD card is shorter at 173 mm (6.8 inches) versus 210 mm (8.3 inches), and it supports PCIe 3.0 x16 while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the WX 5100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 460 has two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support shows the AMD card with DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the GTX 460 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan support in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split by workload type. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins in every recorded metric where both are present, and its advantage is largest in compute-heavy scenarios. The Geekbench OpenCL score (24,217 versus 7,925) reflects a 205.6% lead, which suggests the WX 5100 is the appropriate choice for GPU-accelerated compute tasks, such as OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or data processing. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth further support workloads that need large working sets, like high-resolution texture loading or multi-app professional workflows.

The GTX 460 does not have a single recorded win in the head-to-head data. However, the database shows its rival set includes cards like the Quadro P5000 and GTX 880M with average scores slightly above it (8,039 and 8,040, respectively), indicating that the GTX 460 sits in a lower performance tier overall. Its strengths, if any, would have to come from its era-specific features: it is a dual-slot card with dual DVI outputs and a 160 W TDP, which might suit older legacy systems with PCIe 2.0 slots. But the benchmark evidence does not support any performance win for the NVIDIA card in the tests recorded.

For gaming, the Passmark DirectX scores of the WX 5100 (29 in DX10, 36 in DX11, 26 in DX12, 88 in DX9) and its Passmark G3D score of 5,496 indicate it can handle older DirectX titles competently, though the low absolute numbers suggest these are not high-end gaming scores. The GTX 460 has no Passmark entries in the database, so no direct gaming comparison is possible beyond the OpenCL result. For professional use, the WX 5100's four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and single-slot, no-connector design make it far easier to integrate into multi-monitor workstations, while the GTX 460's dual-slot form factor and 2x 6-pin power requirement complicate installation.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only benchmark where both appear?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24,217 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7,925 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, a delta of 205.6% in favor of AMD.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The WX 5100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The WX 5100 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: The WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has better compute throughput?

A: The WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS of FP32 and 3.892 TFLOPS of FP16. The GTX 460 delivers 907.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and has no FP16 capability recorded.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11, while the WX 5100 was released on 2016-11-17. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the superior card in every measurable category. Its OpenCL performance is 205.6% higher, it has 10.7 times the memory capacity, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and more than four times the FP32 compute throughput. The GTX 460 cannot match any of these metrics. The WX 5100 also offers modern connectivity (four DisplayPort 1.4a versus dual DVI and mini-HDMI), lower power draw (75 W versus 160 W), a smaller footprint (173 mm versus 210 mm), and a newer PCIe interface (3.0 versus 2.0). Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it far easier to install in compact or dense systems.

The GTX 460's only advantages are its earlier release date (2010 versus 2016) and its lower launch MSRP (199 USD versus 499 USD), but the database does not record any performance scenario where the older card wins. For any modern workload, whether compute, professional visualization, or multi-monitor output, the WX 5100 is the clear choice. The GTX 460 would only be relevant for legacy systems that specifically require its Fermi-era feature set or dual DVI outputs, and even then, the performance gap is so large that it is hard to justify from a benchmark perspective. The data verdict is unambiguous: pick the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 713 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1086 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 768 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 336 |

| TMUs | 112 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.75 GPixel/s | 9.450 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 121.6 GTexel/s | 37.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.892 TFLOPS | 907.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 75 W | 160 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | Not listed |

| Length | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-11-17 | 2010-07-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | 199 USD |