AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison points to a clear overall winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. Its average benchmark score of 20480 places it 11.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 460’s 18373, and it holds the win in both recorded head-to-head tests. However, the decision is not purely about speed. The Quadro M4000M is a professional mobile workstation solution, while the RX 460 is a desktop consumer part, and their underlying architectures and memory configurations target different workloads.

From the recorded measurements, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the card to choose if your priority is maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan, particularly for professional applications that benefit from higher memory bandwidth and a larger frame buffer. The AMD Radeon RX 460, with its smaller 2 GB memory pool and narrower 128-bit bus, is the more compact, lower-power option for a desktop system, but it consistently trails in pure performance metrics.

For users already in an NVIDIA-centric professional ecosystem, the Quadro M4000M’s 12_1 DirectX support and 1.4 Vulkan API level give it a software compatibility edge in the database. For general desktop use, the RX 460’s dual-slot form factor, 75 W TDP, and no external power connector requirement make it simpler to install, but the performance gap is decisive. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro M4000M wins on performance, the RX 460 wins on physical practicality.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in every benchmark category where both cards were tested. In the OpenCL test, it scored 19989 against the RX 460’s 17855, a 12% advantage. In the Vulkan test, it scored 20971 against 20198, a smaller but still significant 3.8% lead. The Quadro’s average benchmark score of 20480 is also higher than the RX 460’s 18373, confirming its overall superiority in the database’s aggregated metrics.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 does not win any recorded head-to-head test. Its strengths lie elsewhere. With a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, it achieves a higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm², compared to the Quadro’s 13.1M per mm² on a 28 nm node. This makes the RX 460 a much smaller chip, at 123 mm² versus 398 mm², and it consumes less power, with a 75 W TDP against the Quadro’s 100 W. The RX 460 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 2.150 TFLOPS, while the Quadro’s FP16 capability is not recorded. For a compact desktop build, the RX 460’s 170 mm length and lack of power connectors are practical advantages.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The chip features 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. Its memory subsystem is substantial: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The clock speeds are modest, with a base of 975 MHz and a boost of 1013 MHz, but the wide memory bus compensates. The result is a pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 2.593 TFLOPS.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 uses the Baffin chip with the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving it a much higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The chip has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Memory is limited to 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its clocks are higher, with a base of 1090 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, but the narrower bus and fewer ROPs cap its throughput. The pixel rate is 19.20 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 67.20 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance at 2.150 TFLOPS.

The architectural gap is stark. The Quadro M4000M has four times the ROP count, double the memory bus width, double the memory capacity, and significantly higher bandwidth. The RX 460 counteracts with a more modern process node, higher clocks, and a much smaller die. In terms of API support, the Quadro offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 offers DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro also supports a higher Vulkan revision. The RX 460 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20480, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 18373. The Quadro is 11.5% higher.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M4000M scores 19989 in OpenCL, versus the RX 460’s 17855. The Quadro wins by 12%.

Q: Is the RX 460 better in any benchmark?

A: No. The RX 460 loses both recorded head-to-head tests. It does, however, support FP16 compute at 2.150 TFLOPS, a feature not recorded for the Quadro.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The Quadro M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor. The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, is a dual-slot card, and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fillrate?

A: The Quadro M4000M has a pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s, far exceeding the RX 460’s 19.20 GPixel/s, due to its 64 ROPs versus 16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database provides two direct comparison points between the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and the AMD Radeon RX 460. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M4000M scored 19989, while the RX 460 scored 17855. This is a 12% advantage for the Quadro, reflecting its stronger FP32 throughput (2.593 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS) and its much higher memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s). The Quadro’s larger 4 GB frame buffer and 256-bit bus give it a clear edge in memory-intensive compute workloads.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap narrows considerably. The Quadro M4000M scored 20971, and the RX 460 scored 20198, a 3.8% difference. This smaller delta suggests that the RX 460’s higher clock speeds (1200 MHz boost versus 1013 MHz) and its newer 14 nm process help it close the gap in graphics API workloads, where memory bandwidth is less critical than raw shader throughput. Still, the Quadro maintains the lead, likely due to its superior ROP count (64 versus 16) and texture rate (81.04 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s).

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro M4000M’s average score of 20480 places it in a tight cluster with several other GPUs. It sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534), 0.4% below the Intel Arc B570 (20556), 0.5% below the Intel Arc A750 (20582), and 0.9% below the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662). These are all very close scores, indicating that the Quadro M4000M is competitive with a range of newer and older parts from different vendors.

The RX 460’s average score of 18373 places it in a similar tight pack. It is 0.1% below the Intel Arc A770M (18383), 0.9% below the AMD FirePro D500 (18533), 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18189), and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18159). This shows that the RX 460, despite being a lower-tier consumer card, performs within a narrow margin of some professional and mobile parts, though it trails the Quadro M4000M by a more substantial margin.

The overall picture from the head-to-head data is consistent: the Quadro M4000M wins both tests, with a larger margin in OpenCL (12%) and a smaller margin in Vulkan (3.8%). The RX 460’s best showing is in Vulkan, where its modern architecture and higher clocks allow it to compete more effectively, but it cannot overcome the Quadro’s fundamental advantages in memory capacity, bandwidth, and ROP throughput. For users prioritizing compute performance, the Quadro M4000M is the clear choice based on the recorded data.