AMD Radeon R7 M460 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 and NVIDIA RTX A400 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by eight years of architecture evolution and a fundamental difference in purpose. Benchmark data shows the RTX A400 leading in every measured category, with its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 dwarfing the R7 M460's 6,612 by a margin of 71.1%. The R7 M460, an end-of-life mobile part from 2016, ranks in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400, an active workstation card from 2024, sits at the 35th percentile—a narrower gap in overall standing than raw scores suggest, because the RTX A400's Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and average benchmark score of 6,078 pull its percentile down against a field dominated by gaming-focused silicon.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior performer in absolute terms, and the choice for anyone needing workstation-class features or modern API support. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 is 3.45 times higher than the R7 M460's 6,612, and it offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR5, with bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s compared to 36.00 GB/s. The RTX A400 also brings 768 shading units, 6 ray-tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores, none of which exist on the R7 M460. For compute workloads, the RTX A400's FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS is dramatically higher than the R7 M460's 786.4 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R7 M460 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and PCIe 3.0 x8.

However, the R7 M460 is not without merit in its own context. Its 38th percentile ranking actually exceeds the RTX A400's 35th percentile, and its nearest rivals—the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581, 0.5% slower), Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554, 0.9% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, 1.5% slower)—are all within a 1.5% window. This indicates the R7 M460 was a competent entry-level mobile GPU in its era, trading blows with contemporary integrated and low-end discrete solutions. The RTX A400, by contrast, finds itself among competitors like the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% difference), NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, 0.5% slower), and AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, 1% slower), suggesting its average benchmark score is more representative of a mid-range mobile or low-profile desktop card rather than a high-end workstation part.

For buyers today, the decision hinges on workload. The RTX A400 is the only rational choice for modern applications requiring ray tracing, tensor cores, or the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and lack of power connectors make it a drop-in solution for compact workstations. The R7 M460, with its 28 nm process and 2016 release, belongs in legacy systems or as a historical data point; its 1,550 million transistors and 125 mm² die size reflect a bygone era of mobile graphics. The R7 M460's sole benchmark win is its transistor density of 12.4M / mm² versus the RTX A400's 43.5M / mm²—but that is a manufacturing metric, not a performance one, and it favors the newer 8 nm Samsung process anyway.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The R7 M460 uses the Meso chip on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process with 1,550 million transistors spread across a 125 mm² die. The RTX A400 employs the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, built by Samsung on an 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This represents a 5.6-fold increase in transistor count and a 3.5-fold increase in transistor density, from 12.4M / mm² to 43.5M / mm².

Core configurations differ substantially. The R7 M460 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The RTX A400 doubles the shading units to 768, keeps the same 24 TMUs, and doubles ROPs to 16. Critically, the RTX A400 adds 6 ray-tracing cores and 24 tensor cores—hardware entirely absent from the GCN 3.0 design. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost, versus 730 MHz base and 1024 MHz boost for the R7 M460. Memory architecture shows a similar divergence, with the R7 M460 using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 64-bit bus but at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s bandwidth.

API support marks another generational leap. The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer card also leverages PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the bus bandwidth of the R7 M460's PCIe 3.0 x8. Physically, the RTX A400 measures 163 mm by 69 mm, occupies a single slot, and draws 50 W with no power connector required (250 W suggested PSU), whereas the R7 M460's dimensions, slot width, and power requirements are unspecified in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 dominates in FP32 throughput with 2.706 TFLOPS, more than three times the R7 M460's 786.4 GFLOPS. Both cards run FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the relative gap remains identical.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX A400 offers twice the capacity at 4 GB of GDDR6, with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R7 M460's 2 GB of GDDR5 at 36.00 GB/s. Both use a 64-bit memory bus, but the RTX A400's faster 12 Gbps effective memory speed makes the difference.

Q: Does the R7 M460 support ray tracing?

A: No. The R7 M460 has no ray-tracing cores or tensor cores. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the R7 M460 cannot perform.

Q: What is the API compatibility difference?

A: The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R7 M460 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RTX A400 runs Vulkan 1.4 compared to the R7 M460's Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, while the R7 M460's TDP is not specified in the data. However, the RTX A400 delivers over three times the FP32 performance within that 50 W envelope, indicating far superior performance-per-watt.

Q: How do they rank among all GPUs?

A: The R7 M460 sits in the 38th percentile, slightly ahead of the RTX A400's 35th percentile. This is because the RTX A400's average benchmark score of 6,078 is pulled down by its weak Passmark DirectX scores (32 in DX10, 37 in DX11, 27 in DX12), while its OpenCL and Vulkan scores (22,844 and 22,237) are far more impressive.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R7 M460 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 786.4 GFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2024-04-15 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available—Geekbench OpenCL—shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA RTX A400. The RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the R7 M460's 6,612, a delta of -71.1% for the AMD card. This is not a marginal win; the RTX A400 outperforms the R7 M460 by a factor of 3.45 in this compute-focused test. The R7 M460's score places it just 0.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581) and 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698) by 1.3%. The RTX A400's OpenCL score, meanwhile, positions it in a different performance class entirely.

The RTX A400's additional benchmarks reveal a nuanced profile. Its Vulkan score of 22,237 nearly matches its OpenCL result, suggesting consistent compute performance across APIs. However, its Passmark scores tell a different story: 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. These low DirectX scores, combined with a Passmark G2D score of 899 and GPU Compute score of 2,557, indicate that the RTX A400 is optimized for workstation compute tasks rather than legacy gaming workloads. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,983 is more respectable and aligns with its average benchmark score of 6,078.

The R7 M460 has no such additional data points, with only the single Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,612 and an average benchmark score of 6,612. This lack of DirectX or Vulkan benchmarks in the data means direct gaming comparison is impossible, but the architectural differences—no RT cores, no tensor cores, older GCN 3.0 design, and a 28 nm process—strongly suggest the RTX A400 would win in any modern workload. The R7 M460's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, 1.5% behind), was a high-end mobile GPU from 2012, further contextualizing the R7 M460's position as a low-tier part even in its own generation. The RTX A400's nearest rivals—the GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% difference) and Quadro P2000 (6,049, 0.5% behind)—are more modern and capable, yet the RTX A400 still edges them out in average score.