GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear victor in this comparison, decisively outperforming the AMD Radeon RX 460 across every shared benchmark metric. The data shows a generational chasm between the two, with the RTX 2000 Ada delivering over three hundred percent higher scores in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. While the Radeon RX 460 holds a position in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, the RTX 2000 Ada sits just one percentile higher, yet its raw performance output indicates a fundamentally different class of hardware.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap between these two cards is not incremental; it is monumental. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scored 78,074 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 managed only 17,855 points. This translates to a 337.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a performance lead that is difficult to overstate. The data indicates that the RTX 2000 Ada is more than four times faster in this compute-oriented workload, a result that aligns with its positioning as a workstation product.

The results are equally lopsided in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which measures graphics API performance. Here, the RTX 2000 Ada scored 83,360 points against the Radeon RX 460’s 20,198 points, a 312.7% difference. This consistent dominance across both compute and graphics APIs suggests that the NVIDIA card’s superiority is not limited to a specific type of workload but is a fundamental property of its architecture. The RTX 2000 Ada wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a total score of 2 wins and 0 losses.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RTX 2000 Ada’s average benchmark score of 18,954 places it in a virtual tie with rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, which scores 19,030 with a delta of -0.4%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600, which scores 19,036 with a delta of -0.4%. The Radeon RX 460’s average score of 18,373 is similarly competitive with its own rivals, such as the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, -0.1%) and the AMD FirePro D500 (18,533, -0.9%). However, this similarity in average scores is misleading; the head-to-head data reveals the true scale of the performance disparity in the tests where both cards were evaluated.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture and uses the AD107 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This advanced node allows for a transistor count of 18,900 million on a die size of 159 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 460 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This older process houses just 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of only 24.4M per mm².

The core configurations are equally divergent. The RTX 2000 Ada houses 2,816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It also features 22 dedicated ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores, making it a fully featured modern GPU. The Radeon RX 460, by contrast, has only 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor core hardware whatsoever. This means the NVIDIA card is not only faster in raw throughput but also possesses specialized hardware for workloads that the AMD card cannot accelerate at all.

Memory subsystems also tell a story of progression. The RTX 2000 Ada comes with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Radeon RX 460 offers only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the AMD card operates at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The combination of larger capacity and higher bandwidth makes the RTX 2000 Ada vastly more capable for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, there are no scenarios where the AMD Radeon RX 460 wins. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation achieves a 337.3% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL, a test that often reflects compute and professional application performance. This makes the RTX 2000 Ada the definitive choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL, such as video encoding, scientific simulations, or other GPU-accelerated compute tasks. The 312.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan further solidifies its dominance in modern graphics APIs, which are increasingly used in both gaming and professional visualization.

The Radeon RX 460’s only potential advantage lies in its historical context. It is an end-of-life product from 2016 with a modest 2 GB of memory, designed for a different era of software. While it has a near-identical average benchmark score to the RTX 2000 Ada, this is due to the different suites of tests run on each card. In the direct head-to-head tests, the RX 460 is outclassed. The data suggests that the RX 460 might be suitable for legacy applications or very light 2D workloads, but even then, its performance is a fraction of the newer card’s capabilities.

The RTX 2000 Ada’s wins are not just in raw score but also in feature set. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 provides a more modern foundation than the RX 460’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3 support. This means the NVIDIA card is prepared for current and future software standards, while the AMD card is limited to older API versions.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior product by a massive margin. Any user or professional seeking performance should select the RTX 2000 Ada, as it delivers 337.3% higher OpenCL performance and 312.7% higher Vulkan performance than the Radeon RX 460. The data shows that the RTX 2000 Ada is not merely an incremental upgrade but a complete generational leap, offering over six times the shading units, eight times the memory, and more than double the memory bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 should only be considered in scenarios where the RTX 2000 Ada is not an option, such as legacy system compatibility or extremely low-power constraints. However, even its 75 W TDP is only slightly lower than the RTX 2000 Ada’s 70 W, negating a potential power advantage. The RTX 2000 Ada also offers a more capable display output configuration with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections, compared to the RX 460’s single DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a. For any modern workload, the choice is clear: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only rational pick based on the benchmark evidence.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation than the AMD Radeon RX 460 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada scored 78,074 points compared to the RX 460’s 17,855 points, making it 337.3% faster in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 460 win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins 2 benchmarks and the Radeon RX 460 wins 0 benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has support for ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has ray tracing cores, with 22 dedicated cores. The AMD Radeon RX 460 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on a 5 nm process, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 is built on a 14 nm process.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 18,954, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 has an average score of 18,373.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation | AMD Radeon RX 460 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1620 MHz | 1090 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2130 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2816 | 896 |

| TMUs | 88 | 56 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 22 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | 88 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 102.2 GPixel/s | 19.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 187.4 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.00 TFLOPS | 2.150 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 70 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-02-11 | 2016-08-07 |