AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 460 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 occupy opposite extremes of the GPU spectrum, separated by two generations of architecture and a 4x difference in transistor count. The benchmark data reflects this chasm clearly: the Quadro RTX 4000 wins both head-to-head tests by massive margins, while the RX 460 trails by roughly three-quarters in each. However, the comparison is not merely about raw speed — it reveals how far a low-power entry card sits from a professional workstation accelerator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the two shared tests, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 delivers a dominant performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 74,540 versus the Radeon RX 460’s 17,855, a delta of -76% for the AMD card. That is not a close contest; it is a different performance class entirely. The gap widens slightly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro reaches 78,844 against 20,198, a -74.4% delta. In both cases, the Quadro’s score is over four times higher than the RX 460’s.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the picture is more nuanced. The RX 460 averages 18,373 across its three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17,789 across ten tests. The RX 460 actually holds a slight edge in average score (about 3.3% higher), but this is misleading because the test suites differ entirely. The RX 460’s average is buoyed by its strong Geekbench Metal result of 17,065, while the Quadro’s average is dragged down by low Passmark scores in legacy DirectX versions (108 in DX10, 128 in DX11, 52 in DX12, 205 in DX9). The Quadro’s Passmark G3D score of 15,117 and GPU compute score of 6,176 show its real strength, but those aren’t reflected in the head-to-head table.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 4000 sits at the 61st. This means despite the Quadro’s overwhelming victory in the two shared tests, both cards are positioned similarly relative to the entire GPU landscape. The RX 460’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770M (average 18,383, delta -0.1%), while the Quadro’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (average 17,666, delta 0.7%). This suggests the RX 460 is a mid-tier performer for its era, while the Quadro RTX 4000, despite being a workstation card, lands in a similar percentile due to its mixed benchmark profile.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear split. For any workload covered by Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the only rational choice. Its 74,540 OpenCL score is 4.2x the RX 460’s, and its 78,844 Vulkan score is 3.9x higher. If you need compute performance in those APIs, the RX 460 is simply out of its depth — no amount of tuning can close a three-quarters deficit.

However, the RX 460 is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score of 18,373 is higher than the Quadro’s 17,789, driven by a strong Geekbench Metal showing (17,065) that the Quadro doesn’t even participate in. For users working exclusively with Metal-based applications on a system that can’t accommodate the Quadro’s 160 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU, the RX 460’s 75 W power draw and lack of power connectors make it a viable low-power alternative. It’s also shorter (170 mm versus 241 mm) and dual-slot versus the Quadro’s single-slot, which may matter in compact chassis.

Strictly from the data, pick the Quadro RTX 4000 for OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks. Pick the RX 460 only if you need a low-power, end-of-life card with Metal support and can tolerate a 76% performance deficit in the shared tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD Radeon RX 460 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 13,600 million transistors across a 545 mm² die, with a density of 25.0M per mm². The Quadro has over 4.5x the transistors on a die that is 4.4x larger.

The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Quadro RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — 2.6x, 2.6x, and 4x more respectively. Critically, the Quadro adds 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, which the RX 460 lacks entirely. This enables hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration on the Quadro, features absent from the GCN 4.0 design.

The memory subsystem differs as well. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s — 3.7x more bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) versus the RX 460’s 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s higher effective speed compensates for its lower raw clock.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds show a significant divergence. The RX 460 has a higher base clock (1090 MHz) but a lower boost clock (1200 MHz), while the Quadro RTX 4000 starts at 1005 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz — 28.8% higher peak. The Quadro also has a much larger memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit) and more than triple the memory capacity (8 GB versus 2 GB).

Power requirements are starkly different: the RX 460 draws 75 W with no power connectors and needs only a 250 W PSU, while the Quadro draws 160 W, requires a single 8-pin connector, and needs a 450 W PSU. The RX 460 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, the Quadro via PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the RX 460 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Quadro offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

API support favors the Quadro. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s fp16 performance is 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1), and its fp32 is 7.119 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 averages 18,373 across its three tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17,789 across ten tests. The RX 460 is about 3.3% higher, but the test suites are not directly comparable.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540 versus the RX 460’s 17,855, a delta of -76%. That is the largest margin in the shared benchmarks.

Q: Does the RX 460 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 460 has no RT cores listed, while the Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores. The RX 460’s GCN 4.0 architecture predates ray tracing hardware.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 delivers 416.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, versus 112.0 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the RX 460.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The RX 460 is at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro RTX 4000 is at the 61st percentile. Despite the Quadro’s dominant head-to-head wins, they rank nearly identically overall.

Q: What are the power connector requirements?

A: The RX 460 requires no power connectors and has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro RTX 4000 requires a single 8-pin connector and has a 160 W TDP. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the RX 460 and 450 W for the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins decisively in every shared benchmark category. It is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 74,540 score dwarfs the RX 460’s 17,855. It also dominates Vulkan tasks with 78,844 versus 20,198. The Quadro’s 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores give it capabilities the RX 460 simply cannot offer, making it the only option for ray-traced rendering or AI inference in this comparison. Its 416.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB memory capacity are essential for large datasets, and its single-slot design with three DisplayPort outputs suits multi-display workstation setups.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins in scenarios where power and physical constraints matter more than raw performance. Its 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes it drop-in compatible with systems lacking auxiliary power. Its 170 mm length fits in compact cases where the 241 mm Quadro won’t. It also has a higher average benchmark score (18,373 versus 17,789), driven by its Geekbench Metal result of 17,065 — a test the Quadro doesn’t have data for. For legacy DirectX workloads, the RX 460’s architecture may be more compatible, though no direct comparison exists in the data. The RX 460’s DVI output is also unique here, useful for older monitors. Ultimately, the Quadro wins on capability, the RX 460 on accessibility.