AMD Radeon RX 460 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT across all three shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600 XT scores 80,376 against 17,065 for the RX 460, a 371% lead. This is the largest margin in any head-to-head test, reflecting the massive gap in raw compute throughput between the two generations. The RX 5600 XT’s Metal result also sits far above its own average benchmark score of 20,713, indicating that this particular API workload favors its architecture heavily.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern, with the RX 5600 XT at 68,537 versus 17,855 for the RX 460, a 283.9% advantage. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose compute, and the data here aligns with the FP32 and FP16 throughput differences recorded in the specifications. The RX 5600 XT delivers 7.188 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.38 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). That is a 3.3x gap in FP32, which closely tracks the OpenCL delta.

The Vulkan result is the closest of the three, but still a decisive win: 56,218 for the RX 5600 XT versus 20,198 for the RX 460, a 178.3% difference. Vulkan tends to scale with driver efficiency and memory bandwidth as much as raw shader count, and the RX 5600 XT’s 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s on the RX 460 likely contributes to this narrower, though still dominant, margin.

In terms of overall average benchmark scores, the RX 5600 XT records 20,713, while the RX 460 records 18,373. That is a 12.7% gap in average performance, far smaller than any individual head-to-head delta. This discrepancy is because the RX 5600 XT’s average includes several PassMark scores (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute), many of which are lower than its Geekbench results. The RX 460’s average is based solely on its three Geekbench scores, which are relatively closer to its own peak. The RX 5600 XT still wins every shared test, but the average score comparison shows that the RX 460 is not as far behind in all workloads as the Geekbench numbers alone suggest.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the superior product for essentially any workload measured. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 66th percentile rank among all GPUs, and posts an average benchmark score of 20,713. The RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile with an average of 18,373. For users prioritizing raw performance in Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the RX 5600 XT is the only rational choice from this comparison.

However, the RX 460 is not without its niche. Its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it a drop-in solution for older systems with weak power supplies, where the RX 5600 XT’s 150 W TDP and 1x 8-pin connector would require a PSU upgrade. The RX 460 also has a much shorter board length at 170 mm (6.7 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the RX 5600 XT, making it suitable for compact cases. If the priority is maximum performance per dollar of power delivery, the RX 5600 XT wins by a landslide. If the priority is compatibility with minimal power infrastructure, the RX 460 is the only feasible option.

Neither card is currently in production, both marked end-of-life, so the decision is about existing hardware or used-market purchases. The RX 5600 XT’s launch MSRP was 279 USD, which the database records as its only pricing reference. No comparable launch price exists for the RX 460, so any cost comparison beyond that single figure is not supported by the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to completely different architectural generations. The RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which explains the RX 5600 XT’s ability to pack 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, while the RX 460 fits only 3,000 million transistors into 123 mm². Transistor density tells the story: 41.0M per mm² for the RX 5600 XT versus 24.4M per mm² for the RX 460.

The execution resources differ by a factor of roughly 2.5 to 3. The RX 5600 XT has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 224.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute gap is 7.188 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divide. The RX 5600 XT uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. Memory clock rates are recorded as 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600 XT and 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the RX 460. Despite the lower memory clock, the RX 5600 XT’s wider bus and newer memory type deliver more than double the bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 5600 XT versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 460. This matters for data transfer between CPU and GPU, particularly in scenarios with large textures or compute workloads that spill to system memory. API support shows a small gap: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 5600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX 460 supports Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level is 12_1 for the RX 5600 XT versus 12_0 for the RX 460.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 5600 XT delivers 7.188 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.38 TFLOPS FP16, while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The RX 5600 XT is 3.3x faster in FP32.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 5600 XT has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 5600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 supports Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level is 12_1 for the RX 5600 XT and 12_0 for the RX 460.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, while the RX 5600 XT has a 150 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the RX 460 and 450 W for the RX 5600 XT.

Q: How do the benchmark results compare?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600 XT scores 80,376 versus 17,065 for the RX 460, a 371% lead. In OpenCL, it is 68,537 versus 17,855, a 283.9% lead. In Vulkan, it is 56,218 versus 20,198, a 178.3% lead.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX 5600 XT is at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 460 is at the 62nd percentile. The RX 5600 XT also has a higher average benchmark score of 20,713 versus 18,373.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600 XT wins every recorded benchmark category where both cards were tested. Its largest margin is in Geekbench Metal (371% ahead), followed by OpenCL (283.9% ahead) and Vulkan (178.3% ahead). These results track closely with its advantages in shader count (2,304 versus 896), memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s), and pixel fill rate (99.84 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s). Any workload that stresses compute, texturing, or memory throughput will favor the RX 5600 XT decisively.

The RX 460 does not win any benchmark, but it has structural advantages in specific system contexts. Its 75 W TDP and no power connectors mean it can run in systems where a 150 W card with an 8-pin connector physically cannot. Its 170 mm length fits in small form factor cases that would reject a 267 mm card. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is compatible with older motherboards that lack PCIe 4.0 support. For a user with a legacy power supply rated at 250 W and a compact chassis, the RX 460 is the only functional choice, even though it loses every performance test.

For users with a 450 W PSU, a PCIe 4.0 slot, and room for a 267 mm card, the RX 5600 XT is superior in every measured dimension. Its 6 GB memory capacity is three times larger than the RX 460’s 2 GB, which matters for modern game textures and compute buffers. Its 14.38 TFLOPS FP16 throughput is 6.7x the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS, making it far better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistors: 10,300 million versus 3,000 million. Die size: 251 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density: 41.0M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm².

Clocks: base 1130 MHz versus 1090 MHz, boost 1560 MHz versus 1200 MHz. The RX 5600 XT also has a game clock of 1375 MHz, a feature the RX 460 lacks. Memory clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory: 6 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5. Bus width: 192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 2304 versus 896. TMUs: 144 versus 56. ROPs: 64 versus 16. Pixel rate: 99.84 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 224.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.188 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS. FP16: 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: 150 W versus 75 W. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 250 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 5600 XT, versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 460. Length: 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 170 mm (6.7 inches).

Architecture: RDNA 1.0 versus GCN 4.0. Chip: Navi 10 versus Baffin. Generation: Navi (RX 5000) versus Arctic Islands (RX 400). Successor designation: Navi II versus Polaris. Predecessor: Vega versus Pirate Islands. Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3. DirectX feature level: 12_1 versus 12_0. Release date: 2020-01-20 versus 2016-08-07. Both are end-of-life.