AMD Radeon R9 M380 vs AMD Radeon RX 460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data pits the RX 460's OpenCL result against the R9 M380's Metal result, with each card taking one win. The R9 M380 leads in Geekbench Metal with a score of 18476 against 17065 for the RX 460, a delta of 7.6% in favor of the older mobile part. That Metal advantage is notable because it is the only test where the R9 M380 posts a higher raw number than its younger competitor, and it does so by a margin that is meaningful for applications that lean heavily on Apple's Metal API.

The RX 460 answers decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 17855 versus just 12565 for the R9 M380. That is a 42.1% lead, a massive gap that dwarfs the Metal win. In raw compute throughput, the RX 460 is in a different class. The OpenCL result is the strongest single data point in this comparison, and it aligns with the architectural differences between the two chips: the RX 460 carries 896 shading units against 768, has a higher boost clock at 1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and delivers 2.150 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1.536 TFLOPS. Those specifications translate directly into the OpenCL score gap.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the RX 460 sits at 18373 across its recorded tests, while the R9 M380 averages 15521. That is an 18.4% overall advantage for the RX 460, though it is importantly the R9 M380 only has two recorded benchmark entries, one of which is its strong Metal showing. The RX 460's average is buoyed by its Vulkan result of 20198, which is the highest single score in either card's entire benchmark list. The Vulkan test is not present in the head-to-head table, but its existence in the database matters: it shows the RX 460 can exceed both cards' Metal and OpenCL numbers when running through Vulkan.

Percentile placement reinforces the RX 460's edge. It sits in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R9 M380 is in the 58th. That four-point percentile gap is modest, but it reflects the fact that the RX 460's average score is higher and its benchmark distribution is broader. The R9 M380's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at an average score of 15548 (0.2% ahead of the M380), and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 at 15679 (1% ahead). The RX 460, by contrast, trades blows with the Intel Arc A770M at 18383 (0.1% ahead of the RX 460) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 at 18189 (1% behind the RX 460). The RX 460 is effectively level with a modern Intel Arc part, while the R9 M380 is pinned against desktop GPUs from 2016 and 2017.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins by a wide margin. It scores 17855 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 12565 for the R9 M380, a 42.1% lead.

Q: Which card wins in Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M380 wins the Geekbench Metal test, scoring 18476 against 17065 for the RX 460, a 7.6% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 460 has an average benchmark score of 18373 across three tests, while the R9 M380 averages 15521 across two tests. The RX 460 leads by roughly 18%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The RX 460 is in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R9 M380 is in the 58th percentile.

Q: Does the R9 M380 have any Vulkan result?

A: No. The database only records Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL for the R9 M380. The RX 460 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 20198.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card according to the database?

A: The RX 460's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770M at 18383 (0.1% difference). The R9 M380's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti at 15548 (0.2% difference).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. If the target environment is Metal-centric, such as macOS or iOS development, the R9 M380 is the better choice: it beats the RX 460 by 7.6% in the Metal benchmark, and its 4 GB of VRAM doubles the RX 460's 2 GB, which helps with texture-heavy scenes. The R9 M380 also holds a higher percentile rank among its nearest rivals in terms of consistency, though its absolute percentile is lower.

For everything else, the RX 460 is the stronger part. Its OpenCL score is 42.1% higher, its average benchmark score is 18.4% higher, and it has a Vulkan result that reaches 20198, a figure the R9 M380 cannot approach because it has no recorded Vulkan test. The RX 460 also has a higher FP32 throughput (2.150 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS), a faster boost clock (1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz), and more shading units (896 versus 768). In any compute-oriented or cross-API workload, the RX 460 is the one to pick.

The R9 M380's single win is real but narrow. A 7.6% Metal advantage does not compensate for a 42.1% OpenCL deficit. The RX 460 is the more versatile card, and its higher average score and percentile placement confirm that. The R9 M380 is only preferable in a narrow Metal-only scenario where the extra VRAM also matters.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The RX 460 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M380 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The RX 460 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The R9 M380 has 2,080 million transistors on a larger 160 mm² die, with a density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The RX 460 is the denser chip by a wide margin.

Clock speeds favor the RX 460. Its base clock is 1090 MHz with a boost of 1200 MHz, while the R9 M380 runs at 900 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 460 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the R9 M380. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 460 achieves 112.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s for the R9 M380. Memory size is the one area where the R9 M380 wins: 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5.

Compute resources are heavily stacked toward the RX 460. It has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M380 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 19.20 GPixel/s for the RX 460 versus 16.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M380. Texture rates are 67.20 GTexel/s versus 48.00 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 2.150 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS. The RX 460 also lists FP16 at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1), while the R9 M380 has no recorded FP16 figure.

Power and physical specs are incomplete for the R9 M380. The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, a Dual-slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R9 M380 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 460, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M380. The RX 460 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the R9 M380 has none listed. The RX 460 measures 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length; the R9 M380 has no dimensions recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is significant. The RX 460 is built on GCN 4.0 with the Baffin chip, part of the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation. The R9 M380 uses GCN 2.0 with the Strato chip, from the Gem System (R9 M300) generation. That is two full GCN revisions apart, and it explains the efficiency and feature gaps. The RX 460 is fabricated on 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M380 uses 28 nm at TSMC. The newer process allows the RX 460 to pack 3,000 million transistors into 123 mm², versus 2,080 million in 160 mm² for the R9 M380.

The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M380 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but its Vulkan support is older, at version 1.2.170. That Vulkan version difference likely contributes to the RX 460's recorded Vulkan score of 20198, a test the R9 M380 has not completed. The RX 460's memory controller is also more efficient, delivering 112.0 GB/s from a 128-bit bus at 7 Gbps effective, compared to 96.00 GB/s at 6 Gbps effective for the R9 M380.

Release dates reflect the generational gap. The RX 460 was released on 2016-08-07, while the R9 M380 came out earlier on 2015-05-04. The predecessor and successor chains differ: the RX 460 follows Pirate Islands and leads to Polaris, while the R9 M380 follows Solar System and leads to Polaris Mobile. Both cards are end-of-life. The R9 M380's 28 nm node and GCN 2.0 architecture limit its compute capabilities, while the RX 460's 14 nm node and GCN 4.0 architecture enable higher clocks and better power efficiency, despite the RX 460's smaller die and fewer transistors per chip.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M380 wins in Metal-based workloads. Its Geekbench Metal score of 18476 exceeds the RX 460's 17065 by 7.6%, and its 4 GB VRAM gives it more headroom for texture-heavy applications or larger frame buffers. This makes it the better option for macOS or iOS environments where Metal is the primary API, or for any legacy application that relies on Metal and cannot use OpenCL or Vulkan. The R9 M380 also has a wider bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus x8), which may help in systems that can feed it data quickly, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate that effect.

The RX 460 wins everywhere else. Its OpenCL score is 42.1% higher, its average benchmark score is 18.4% higher, and its Vulkan score of 20198 is the highest recorded number for either card. The RX 460 delivers more shading units, higher clock speeds, more memory bandwidth, and double the FP32 throughput. It is the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks, Vulkan gaming or compute, and any mixed-API workload. Its 14 nm process also makes it a more power-efficient part, with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors required, versus the R9 M380's unrecorded power draw.

In practical terms, the RX 460 is the more future-proof card. It supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170 for the R9 M380, has a higher percentile ranking (62nd versus 58th), and sits within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A770M in average score, which puts it in modern company. The R9 M380's nearest rivals include the GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 2060, but those are older desktop parts, and the M380 still trails them slightly. For a new build or an upgrade, the RX 460 is the safer pick. For a very specific Metal-only use case with a need for 4 GB VRAM, the R9 M380 has a narrow but real advantage.