AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The data shows a decisive matchup: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is in a different performance class than the AMD Radeon R7 M460. In the only shared benchmark, the Quadro P2000 delivers a 20,125 Geekbench OpenCL score against the Radeon’s 6,612, a 67.1% margin that leaves no ambiguity about which GPU is faster. The R7 M460 holds no benchmark wins in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head data point is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the Radeon R7 M460 scores 6,612. That is a delta of -67.1% for the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is roughly three times as fast in raw compute throughput. This is not a close race; the gap is so large that it redefines the comparison as a tier mismatch rather than a contest between peers.

Looking at broader benchmark data reinforces this chasm. The Quadro P2000 also posts a Vulkan score of 23,566, which is higher than its own OpenCL result and suggests the Pascal architecture handles modern APIs particularly well. Meanwhile, the R7 M460 has no Vulkan result in the fact pack, leaving its OpenCL score as the only direct measure of its compute ability. The Quadro’s Passmark suite further illustrates its range: a G3D score of 6,956, a GPU compute score of 2,933, and a G2D score of 626. The R7 M460 has no Passmark results at all, so the NVIDIA card’s multi-API coverage is a structural advantage, not just a raw speed one.

The percentile rankings are counterintuitive but informative. The R7 M460 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 is at the 35th percentile. This appears contradictory given the Quadro’s massive OpenCL win, but it reflects the fact that the Quadro’s average benchmark score across all tests is only 6,049, dragged down by weak DirectX 9 and DirectX 12 Passmark results (124 and 28, respectively). The R7 M460’s average score is 6,612, exactly matching its OpenCL result, because that is its only benchmark. So while the Quadro is far superior in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, its overall statistical profile is muddied by legacy API tests where it performs poorly relative to its own peak.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M460 does not win any head-to-head benchmark. Its only victory is statistical: it has a higher percentile ranking (38 vs 35) and a higher average benchmark score (6,612 vs 6,049) because it has a single strong data point while the Quadro’s average is dragged down by its weaker Passmark results. That is a narrow, data-quirk-based edge, not a real-world performance win.

The Quadro P2000 wins in every meaningful compute scenario. Its OpenCL score of 20,125 is 204% higher than the R7 M460’s 6,612. In Vulkan, it achieves 23,566, which is 17% higher than its own OpenCL result, indicating that the card scales well with modern low-level APIs. For professional workloads that rely on OpenCL — such as rendering, simulation, or data processing — the Quadro is the clear choice. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,956 also suggests strong DirectX 11 performance, while the R7 M460 has no comparable data. The Quadro’s 5 GB GDDR5 memory with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth is another decisive factor; the R7 M460 has only 2 GB with 36.00 GB/s, so the NVIDIA card can hold larger datasets and move them faster.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 for any task that involves compute throughput, modern API support, or professional graphics workloads. The 67.1% OpenCL lead is the headline number, but the supporting data — 5 GB vs 2 GB memory, 140.2 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a Vulkan score of 23,566 — shows a comprehensively superior product. The Quadro is also a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP and no external power connectors, making it a practical drop-in for workstations.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 is only defensible if the workload is extremely light and the platform is locked to its specific bus interface. It uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, so the AMD card fits in narrower slots. But the performance gap is so large that even a bandwidth-limited Quadro would likely outperform it. The R7 M460’s 38th percentile ranking is its only positive stat, and that is an artifact of having a single benchmark result. In real-world terms, the data shows no scenario where the R7 M460 wins.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6,612. That is a delta of -67.1% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro is approximately three times faster.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M460 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro P2000 wins. The R7 M460’s only advantages are statistical: its 38th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 35th, and its higher average score of 6,612 versus 6,049, both driven by the fact that it has only one benchmark result.

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

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, yielding 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 2.5 times the memory and nearly 4 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the DirectX API support levels?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The Quadro’s 12_1 feature level is a generation ahead in terms of API capabilities.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Quadro P2000 uses a 16 nm process, while the R7 M460 uses a 28 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the 16 nm node allows the Quadro to pack 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, versus 1,550 million in 125 mm² for the R7 M460.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the Quadro P2000?

A: The Quadro P2000 is 196 mm (7.7 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, with a single-slot design. It has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M460 has no listed dimensions or slot width.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The R7 M460 is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P2000 uses NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at the same foundry. It houses 4,400 million transistors in a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter — nearly double the AMD part’s density.

The compute layout diverges sharply. The R7 M460 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That translates to a pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s for the Quadro, versus 8.192 GPixel/s and 24.58 GTexel/s for the R7 M460. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the Quadro delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32, while the R7 M460 manages 786.4 GFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is stark — the R7 M460 has a 1:1 ratio (786.4 GFLOPS), while the Quadro has a 1:64 ratio (47.36 GFLOPS), indicating the AMD card is designed for general compute while the Quadro is optimized for FP32 professional work.

API support differs in one key area. The Quadro P2000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M460 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the Quadro’s DirectX 12_1 feature level exceeds the R7 M460’s 12_0. The Quadro also has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the R7 M460 lists no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The most consequential differences are in memory configuration and bus interface. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M460 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the R7 M460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R7 M460 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds favor the Quadro across the board. Its base clock is 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, versus the R7 M460’s base of 730 MHz and boost of 1024 MHz. The Quadro has a listed TDP of 75 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M460 has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU data. The Quadro is also physically defined at 196 mm by 111 mm, while the R7 M460 has no dimensions listed.

The release timeline shows the R7 M460 came first, on 2016-05-14, followed by the Quadro P2000 on 2017-02-05. Both are end-of-life products. The R7 M460’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile; the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. Neither card has a launch MSRP in the data.