AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and AMD Radeon R7 M460 are two very different GPUs, separated by five years of development and aimed at different segments of the market. The Quadro 5000 is a professional workstation card from 2011, built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, while the R7 M460 is a mobile-class chip from 2016 using AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, but the underlying specifications reveal why these two parts perform as they do.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are close but not identical. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6612 points. This gives the Quadro 5000 a 10.2% advantage, and it claims the sole win in the head-to-head comparison (1 win for the Quadro 5000, 0 for the Radeon).

Looking at the nearest rivals puts this delta into context. The Quadro 5000’s score of 7289 places it just 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (which averages 7222), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203). The R7 M460’s 6612 is 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (which scores 6698), but 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513). In percentile terms, the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M460 is at the 38th percentile. That 10.2% lead in raw OpenCL compute is meaningful, but it is not a dominant margin; both cards are firmly in the lower-middle tier of performance by modern standards.

The benchmark result favors the Quadro 5000, but the story is more nuanced when you consider the architectures. The Quadro 5000 achieves its score with 352 shading units and 44 texture mapping units, while the R7 M460 has 384 shading units but only 24 TMUs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 5000’s higher memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs. 36.00 GB/s) and wider 320-bit bus (vs. 64-bit) likely compensate in compute workloads. The R7 M460 does reach a higher boost clock (1024 MHz vs. the Quadro’s unspecified base/boost), but that alone does not close the gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289, which is 10.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M460’s 6612.

Q: How does the R7 M460 compare to its closest rival, the GeForce GT 1010?

A: The R7 M460 scores 6612, which is 1.3% lower than the GeForce GT 1010’s 6698. It is also 0.5% higher than the Radeon HD 7730M and 1.5% higher than the GTX 670M.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a memory bandwidth of 120.0 GB/s, while the R7 M460 has 36.00 GB/s. That is a 3.33x difference in favor of the Quadro 5000.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but only the R7 M460 lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.170).

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The Quadro 5000’s GF100 chip has a density of 5.9M transistors per mm², while the R7 M460’s Meso chip has 12.4M transistors per mm². The R7 M460 packs more than twice the density despite having fewer total transistors (1,550 million vs. 3,100 million).

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R7 M460’s 8.192 GPixel/s. However, the R7 M460 has a slightly higher texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs. 22.57 GTexel/s).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different eras and design philosophies. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. This is a large, power-hungry design typical of early Fermi professional cards. The R7 M460, in contrast, uses the Meso chip on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,550 million transistors on a much smaller 125 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the R7 M460 achieves 12.4M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 5000 manages only 5.9M per mm². The newer process allows AMD to pack more functionality into less space, even if the total transistor count is lower.

Memory architecture differs dramatically. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, yielding 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 36.00 GB/s. This is the single largest specification gap between the two, and it explains why the Quadro 5000 wins the OpenCL test despite having fewer shading units. The R7 M460 does have more shading units (384 vs. 352), but its narrow memory bus starves those cores in bandwidth-intensive workloads.

Compute capabilities also diverge. The Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R7 M460 delivers 786.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M460 also lists FP16 performance at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro 5000 has no FP16 figure. However, the Quadro 5000’s higher pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s) suggests better rasterization throughput. The R7 M460 has a higher texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs. 22.57 GTexel/s), so neither card is uniformly ahead in raw throughput metrics.

API support reflects the generational gap. The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M460 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 5000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the faster GPU. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7289 beats the R7 M460’s 6612 by 10.2%, and it holds a higher percentile ranking (40th vs. 38th). The Quadro 5000 also wins on memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs. 36.00 GB/s) and pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s). For OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro 5000 is the clear choice.

However, the R7 M460 is not without merits. It has a higher FP32 throughput (786.4 GFLOPS vs. 722.3 GFLOPS), a higher texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs. 22.57 GTexel/s), and supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). The Quadro 5000 is end-of-life and was released in 2011, while the R7 M460 is also end-of-life but from 2016. If your workload relies on Vulkan or newer DirectX features, the R7 M460 has a compatibility edge. If raw OpenCL compute or memory bandwidth is the priority, the Quadro 5000 wins.

The choice depends on the application. For professional compute tasks that leverage OpenCL and benefit from high memory bandwidth, the Quadro 5000’s 10.2% lead is decisive. For modern gaming or applications that require Vulkan support or a higher FP32 rate, the R7 M460 is more capable despite its lower overall score. The Quadro 5000 also carries a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the R7 M460 has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Process Node: Quadro 5000 is 40 nm; R7 M460 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million; R7 M460 has 1,550 million.
• Die Size: Quadro 5000 is 529 mm²; R7 M460 is 125 mm².
• Transistor Density: Quadro 5000 is 5.9M / mm²; R7 M460 is 12.4M / mm².
• Memory Size: Quadro 5000 is 2.5 GB; R7 M460 is 2 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: Quadro 5000 is 320 bit; R7 M460 is 64 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Quadro 5000 is 120.0 GB/s; R7 M460 is 36.00 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: Quadro 5000 is 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective); R7 M460 is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).
• Shading Units: Quadro 5000 has 352; R7 M460 has 384.
• TMUs: Quadro 5000 has 44; R7 M460 has 24.
• ROPs: Quadro 5000 has 40; R7 M460 has 8.
• Pixel Rate: Quadro 5000 is 11.29 GPixel/s; R7 M460 is 8.192 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Quadro 5000 is 22.57 GTexel/s; R7 M460 is 24.58 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 5000 is 722.3 GFLOPS; R7 M460 is 786.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Quadro 5000 has none; R7 M460 is 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Quadro 5000 is 152 W; R7 M460 has no listed TDP.
• Slot Width: Quadro 5000 is Dual-slot; R7 M460 has none.
• Power Connectors: Quadro 5000 is 1x 6-pin; R7 M460 has none.
• Suggested PSU: Quadro 5000 is 450 W; R7 M460 has none.
• Bus Interface: Quadro 5000 is PCIe 2.0 x16; R7 M460 is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: Quadro 5000 is 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort; R7 M460 has none.
• DirectX: Quadro 5000 is 12 (11_0); R7 M460 is 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan: Quadro 5000 has none; R7 M460 is 1.2.170.
• Dimensions: Quadro 5000 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high; R7 M460 has none.
• Release Date: Quadro 5000 is 2011-02-22; R7 M460 is 2016-05-14.
• Predecessor: Quadro 5000 is Quadro FX Tesla; R7 M460 is Solar System.
• Successor: Quadro 5000 is Quadro Kepler; R7 M460 is Polaris Mobile.
• Launch MSRP: Quadro 5000 is 2,499 USD; R7 M460 has none.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in every category that matters for traditional compute and professional graphics. Its 10.2% higher OpenCL score, 120.0 GB/s memory bandwidth (more than triple the R7 M460’s 36.00 GB/s), and higher pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s) make it the better choice for bandwidth-hungry workloads like large data sets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display professional output. Its 2.5 GB memory capacity and 320-bit bus are also superior for holding larger working sets.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 wins on raw compute throughput in some metrics. It has a higher FP32 rate (786.4 GFLOPS vs. 722.3 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs. 22.57 GTexel/s), which could benefit texture-heavy shaders. It also supports modern APIs—DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170—while the Quadro 5000 is stuck with DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan. For developers targeting Vulkan or for games that use newer DirectX 12 features, the R7 M460 is more future-proof. Its smaller die (125 mm² vs. 529 mm²) and lack of a listed TDP suggest it is far more power-efficient, though the Quadro 5000’s 152 W TDP is the only concrete figure available. The R7 M460’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface also provides more bandwidth per lane than the Quadro 5000’s PCIe 2.0 x16, which can reduce transfer bottlenecks in systems with limited PCIe lanes.

In summary, the Quadro 5000 is the winner for OpenCL compute, memory bandwidth, and pixel throughput. The R7 M460 is the winner for modern API support, FP32 throughput, and texture rate. The benchmark data gives the Quadro 5000 the overall edge, but the R7 M460 has clear strengths in specific scenarios.