AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 460 wins with a score of 17,855 against the NVIDIA Tesla M4's 16,932. That is a 5.2% margin in favor of the AMD card. While the delta is not enormous, it is consistent and measurable, and it gives the RX 460 the sole head-to-head victory in this comparison.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the RX 460's average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 18,373, which is 8.5% higher than the Tesla M4's 16,932. The RX 460's best result comes from Geekbench Vulkan at 20,198, a test the Tesla M4 does not appear in. The RX 460 also shows a Geekbench Metal score of 17,065. The Tesla M4 has only a single OpenCL result, so the RX 460's multiple API scores give it a wider performance envelope.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap. The RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M4 sits at the 60th. That is a narrow overall ranking difference, but the average score gap of 1,441 points is the more telling statistic. The RX 460's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A770M (1,8383, just 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189, 1% behind), placing it in solid mid-range company. The Tesla M4's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, 0.5% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037, 0.6% ahead), putting it in slightly older or lower-tier territory.

In raw compute terms, the two cards are closer than the benchmark averages suggest. The Tesla M4 delivers 2.195 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the RX 460 delivers 2.150 TFLOPS — a negligible 2% difference in favor of the NVIDIA part. The M4 also has a higher pixel rate at 34.30 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s for the RX 460, a 79% advantage. Texture rates are nearly identical: 68.61 GTexel/s for the M4 versus 67.20 GTexel/s for the RX 460. Yet the benchmark results favor the AMD card, which suggests the RX 460's higher clocks and memory bandwidth make up for its lower theoretical peak rates.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural split here is generational and philosophical. The NVIDIA Tesla M4 uses the GM206 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon RX 460 uses the Baffin chip on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 14 nm, which explains the RX 460's much smaller die at 123 mm² versus the M4's 228 mm². The RX 460 packs 3,000 million transistors into that smaller die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm², nearly double the M4's 12.9 million per mm².

Core counts differ in interesting ways. The Tesla M4 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. So the NVIDIA card has 14% more shaders, 14% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. Yet the RX 460 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, which points to the efficiency of the GCN 4.0 architecture at higher clocks. The M4 runs at a base clock of 872 MHz and boost of 1,072 MHz, while the RX 460 runs at 1,090 MHz base and 1,200 MHz boost — a 12% higher boost clock.

Memory configurations diverge more sharply. The Tesla M4 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1,375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 88.00 GB/s. The RX 460 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its memory runs at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth — 27% more than the M4. That bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the RX 460's benchmark win, despite having half the capacity.

Feature support differs as well. The M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 460 has FP16 capability at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the M4 lists no FP16 data. The M4's display outputs are listed as "No outputs," which is expected for a compute-oriented Tesla card, while the RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear split between compute-focused deployment and general-purpose graphics use. The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins the only shared benchmark, has a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile. It also offers display outputs, which the Tesla M4 lacks entirely. For any workload involving OpenCL compute, the RX 460 is the better performer by 5.2% in the direct head-to-head and by 8.5% in average scores.

The Tesla M4's advantages are in capacity and specific compute characteristics. It has twice the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), double the ROPs, and a higher FP32 peak. But none of those translate into a benchmark win in the data provided. The M4's single-score OpenCL result of 16,932 places it below the RX 460's OpenCL result of 17,855 and below the RX 460's average of 18,373.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the RX 460 is the practical pick for any task that involves running software with OpenCL, Vulkan, or Metal support. The Tesla M4 is a server-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, making it unsuitable for a desktop workstation without a secondary GPU. The RX 460's higher clocks, faster memory, and newer process node give it a performance edge that the M4's larger core count cannot overcome.

The percentile data reinforces this: the RX 460 at the 62nd percentile is marginally ahead of the M4 at the 60th, but the average score gap is more significant. The RX 460's nearest rival, the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383, is only 0.1% ahead, while the Tesla M4's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17,019, is 0.5% ahead. The M4 is competing with hardware from 2012-2013 era, while the RX 460 is competing with much newer parts.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M4 | AMD Radeon RX 460 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 3,000 million |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 872 MHz | 1,090 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,072 MHz | 1,200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,375 MHz (5.5 Gbps) | 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.00 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 896 |

| TMUs | 64 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 34.30 GPixel/s | 19.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 68.61 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.195 TFLOPS | 2.150 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-09 | 2016-08-07 |

# FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 17,855 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the NVIDIA Tesla M4's 16,932 by 5.2%.

Q: Does the Tesla M4 have any display outputs?

A: No, the Tesla M4 is listed with "No outputs," making it unsuitable as a primary graphics card. The RX 460 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The Tesla M4 has 88.00 GB/s, while the RX 460 has 112.0 GB/s — a 27% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 460 has an average score of 18,373 across its three benchmark entries, while the Tesla M4 has an average of 16,932 from its single entry.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla M4 has a TDP of 50 W, while the RX 460 has a TDP of 75 W. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head at 17,855 versus 16,932, and its Vulkan score of 20,198 is the highest single result in this comparison. The RX 460 also has the advantage in memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s), higher clocks (1,200 MHz boost versus 1,072 MHz), and a smaller, denser die (123 mm² at 24.4M/mm² versus 228 mm² at 12.9M/mm²). Its 14 nm process node gives it a clear efficiency lead over the 28 nm Tesla M4. For any application that can use Vulkan or Metal, the RX 460 is the only option with those benchmark results, and its display outputs make it usable in a standard desktop.

The NVIDIA Tesla M4 wins in specific compute-oriented specifications. It has 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, double the ROP count (32 versus 16), and a slightly higher FP32 peak (2.195 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS). Its pixel rate of 34.30 GPixel/s is 79% higher than the RX 460's 19.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 68.61 GTexel/s edges out the RX 460's 67.20 GTexel/s. The M4 also has a lower TDP at 50 W versus 75 W, and it supports newer API versions: DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the RX 460's DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. The M4's higher transistor count (2,940 million versus 3,000 million, though the RX 460 has slightly more) and its single-slot form factor make it a more compact server card.

For real-world use, the RX 460 is the better choice for anything involving graphics output, OpenCL compute, or modern API support. The Tesla M4 is only preferable if you need more VRAM, lower power draw, or a single-slot form factor in a compute-only server environment — and even then, its benchmark scores are lower in the one test both cards share.