AMD Radeon RX 460 vs Intel Arc A750 Comparison

Intel Arc A750 and AMD Radeon RX 460 occupy entirely different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by six years of architecture evolution and a massive performance gulf. The recorded data shows the Arc A750 wins every shared benchmark by a wide margin, but the RX 460 still holds relevance in specific legacy scenarios. The A750 delivers modern feature support and compute muscle, while the RX 460 offers a low-power, no-connector footprint for basic display output and older workloads. Below is a breakdown based strictly on database measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A750 dominates every benchmark where both cards have recorded scores. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A750 scores 98554 against the RX 460's 17855, a 452% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A750 posts 85631 versus 20198, a 324% lead. These are not close contests; the A750 is between roughly four and five and a half times faster depending on the API. The A750 also has a much richer benchmark portfolio in the database, with scores across 3DMark Steel Nomad, Passmark DirectX 9 through 12, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, while the RX 460 only has Geekbench entries.

The RX 460's only recorded win appears in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 17065, a test the A750 does not appear in. That is a narrow, API-specific niche rather than a general performance advantage. The RX 460 also wins on power envelope, with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, versus the A750's 225 W TDP and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin requirement. The RX 460's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the A750 asks for 550 W. For a secondary display card or a machine with a weak power supply, the RX 460 is the only viable choice from the data.

The A750 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth decisively: 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus delivering 512.0 GB/s, against 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus at 112.0 GB/s. The A750's 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 and 34.41 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) far exceed the RX 460's 2.150 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The A750 also supports hardware ray tracing with 28 RT cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 460.

Architecture Differences

The A750 uses the DG2-512 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process, packing 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die with a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die and a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The node and design gap explains the A750's far higher transistor count and density.

The A750 belongs to the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation (Arc 7). The RX 460 uses GCN 4.0, part of the Arctic Islands generation (RX 400). This architectural divide shows in feature support: the A750 reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The A750 includes 28 ray tracing cores and 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware.

Memory technology differs completely. The A750 uses 8 GB GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) over a 256 bit interface. The RX 460 uses 2 GB GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) over a 128 bit interface. The A750's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is 4.57 times the RX 460's 112.0 GB/s. The A750 runs PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 460 runs PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available link lanes and using an older standard.

Clock speeds show the A750's efficiency advantage: base 2050 MHz and boost 2400 MHz, versus the RX 460's base 1090 MHz and boost 1200 MHz. The A750 achieves nearly double the clock speed while delivering far more compute resources. Pixel rate on the A750 is 268.8 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s on the RX 460, and texture rate is 537.6 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s.

Display outputs also differ. The A750 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. The RX 460 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The A750's newer display standard support aligns with its 2022 release date, while the RX 460's 2016 release explains its legacy port selection. The RX 460 measures 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length, a compact card, while the A750's dimensions are not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Arc A750 is the superior performer in every shared workload. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 98554 versus 17855 and Vulkan score of 85631 versus 20198 leave no ambiguity. The A750's average benchmark score of 20582 places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 460's average of 18373 puts it in the 62nd percentile. The A750 sits near rivals like the Intel Arc B570 (avg 20556, 0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avg 20534, 0.2% delta). The RX 460 sits near the Intel Arc A770M (avg 18383, -0.1% delta) and AMD FirePro D500 (avg 18533, -0.9% delta).

For gaming, ray tracing, high-resolution textures, or compute workloads, the A750 is the clear pick. Its 8 GB GDDR6, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, 28 RT cores, and 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 make it capable of modern titles at high settings. The RX 460 with 2 GB GDDR5 and 2.150 TFLOPS cannot handle those demands; its 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 16 ROPs limit it to older or lighter titles.

For a low-power secondary card, a system with a 250 W PSU, or a build requiring no auxiliary power connectors, the RX 460 fits where the A750 cannot. Its 75 W TDP and connector-free design are unmatched by the A750's 225 W TDP and dual-connector requirement. The RX 460's compact 170 mm length also suits small cases. The A750 is end-of-life, as is the RX 460, so neither offers future platform longevity, but the A750's successor Battlemage and the RX 460's successor Polaris are noted in the database.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A750 than the RX 460 in OpenCL?

A: The A750 scores 98554 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 452% higher than the RX 460's 17855.

Q: Does the RX 460 support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 460 has no RT cores, while the A750 includes 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The A750 delivers 512.0 GB/s over a 256 bit GDDR6 bus, while the RX 460 provides 112.0 GB/s over a 128 bit GDDR5 bus.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The A750 has a 225 W TDP, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the RX 460 wins?

A: In the recorded data, the RX 460 appears in Geekbench Metal with a score of 17065, a test the A750 does not have. In shared tests, the A750 wins both.

Q: How do their DirectX versions compare?

A: The A750 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two head-to-head benchmark results, and the A750 wins both by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A750 scores 98554 against the RX 460's 17855, a delta of 452%. That means the A750 is roughly 5.5 times faster in raw compute throughput. This aligns with the A750's 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 versus the RX 460's 2.150 TFLOPS, an 8x theoretical gap that the real-world test narrows somewhat due to driver and workload characteristics.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A750 scores 85631 against the RX 460's 20198, a delta of 324%. The A750 is about 4.2 times faster in Vulkan compute. The RX 460's Vulkan 1.3 support and GCN architecture still produce a usable score, but the A750's Xe-HPG architecture with 3584 shading units and 28 RT cores simply overwhelms it. The A750's Vulkan score is 13% lower than its OpenCL score, while the RX 460's Vulkan score is 13% higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the RX 460 handles Vulkan relatively better, though still far behind.

The A750's broader benchmark suite reinforces its lead. In Passmark G3D, it scores 12534; in Passmark GPU Compute, 5368; in Passmark DirectX 9, 181; DirectX 10, 65; DirectX 11, 72; and DirectX 12, 70. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2612. The RX 460 has no recorded scores in these tests, so cross-comparison is impossible, but the A750's average benchmark score of 20582 versus the RX 460's 18373 shows the A750 maintains a 12% lead even when averaging across all recorded tests, including the RX 460's Metal advantage.

The A750's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc B570 (avg 20556, 0.1% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avg 20534, 0.2% delta), placing it in a competitive mid-range tier. The RX 460's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A770M (avg 18383, -0.1% delta) and AMD FirePro D500 (avg 18533, -0.9% delta), a much lower performance bracket. The gap between the two cards' average scores is roughly 2209 points, which corresponds to the massive architectural and generational divide between a 2022 Alchemist part and a 2016 Polaris-era part. For anyone choosing between these two based on the recorded data, the A750 is the only option for modern workloads, while the RX 460 serves only as a low-power legacy solution.