AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two common benchmark tests between the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and the AMD Radeon RX 460, and the results are heavily one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the RX 460's 17,855, a delta of 342.4% in favor of the NVIDIA card. That is not a marginal lead; it is a fourfold advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The Vulkan test tells the same story, with the Quadro RTX 5000 posting 92,309 versus 20,198 for the RX 460, a 357% gap. For context, the Quadro RTX 5000's nearest rivals in the overall database average score around 21,000 to 22,000, so the RX 460's 18,373 average is closer to those mid-range parts than it is to the Quadro's 21,629 average.

The Quadro RTX 5000 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a clean 2-0 record. The RX 460 has no benchmark in which it beats the Quadro. Looking at the individual scores, the Quadro's Geekbench Vulkan result of 92,309 is its stronger showing, while the RX 460's best recorded result across any test is its Vulkan score of 20,198. Even that best-case figure for the AMD card is lower than the Quadro's worst recorded score among the tests they share.

The delta percentages are worth emphasizing because they exceed what the raw specifications alone would suggest. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 3,072 shading units against 896 for the RX 460, a 3.4x ratio, but the Vulkan gap is 357%, which is slightly larger than that architectural ratio would predict. The OpenCL gap of 342.4% is closer to the shading unit ratio but still higher. This indicates that the Quadro's advantage is not merely a matter of having more compute units; the memory subsystem and driver overhead likely contribute as well. The Quadro's 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s for the RX 460 is a 4x difference, which aligns more closely with the observed benchmark deltas.

The RX 460 does have one benchmark that the Quadro does not participate in: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 17,065. That is its lowest recorded score across all tests. The Quadro RTX 5000 has no Metal result in the database, so a direct comparison on that API is not possible. The RX 460 also has no results for Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12, nor for Passmark G2D, G3D, or GPU compute, while the Quadro has scores in all of those categories. This asymmetry in available data means the head-to-head comparison rests entirely on the OpenCL and Vulkan results, both of which favor the NVIDIA card decisively.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior performer in every shared test. The 342.4% OpenCL lead and 357% Vulkan lead are not close margins. Anyone choosing between these two cards for compute-heavy workloads, as measured by OpenCL or Vulkan, should select the Quadro RTX 5000 without hesitation. The RX 460's 18,373 average benchmark score places it in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro RTX 5000 sits in the 67th percentile. That percentile gap is smaller than the raw score gap might imply, but the percentile ranking reflects the full database, not just this pairing.

The RX 460's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD FirePro D500 at 18,533 (a 0.9% difference). These are close competitors. The Quadro RTX 5000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB at 21,856 (1% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile at 21,379 (1.2% lower). The Quadro's average score of 21,629 puts it in a higher performance tier entirely. The RX 460 is not in the same class as the Quadro by any metric recorded in the database.

However, the verdict is not entirely about raw performance. The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro RTX 5000 has a 230 W TDP and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The RX 460 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the Quadro's PCIe 3.0 x16. For a system with limited power delivery or a narrow PCIe slot, the RX 460 is the only viable option. The Quadro RTX 5000's suggested PSU is 550 W, whereas the RX 460's is 250 W. The Quadro is also physically longer at 267 mm versus 170 mm for the RX 460. The verdict from the benchmark data alone is clear, but the system integration requirements may override that for some users.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations with fundamentally different designs. The Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip built on TSMC's 12 nm process, while the RX 460 uses the Baffin chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. The Quadro packs 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The RX 460 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4M per mm². The densities are similar, but the Quadro's die is more than four times larger.

The Quadro RTX 5000 is built on the Turing architecture and belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. It includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, features that are entirely absent from the RX 460. The RX 460 uses GCN 4.0, part of the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, and has no RT or tensor cores. This means the Quadro supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations, while the RX 460 does not. The API support reflects this: the Quadro lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 8 times the memory capacity and 4 times the bandwidth. Clock speeds also favor the Quadro: 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost versus 1090 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost for the RX 460. Memory clocks are the same at 1750 MHz, but the effective data rates differ: 14 Gbps for the Quadro versus 7 Gbps for the RX 460.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The Quadro has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, against 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the RX 460. Pixel rate is 116.2 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 348.5 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 11.15 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS. The Quadro's FP16 is 22.30 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 460's FP16 is 2.150 TFLOPS at 1:1. The RX 460's FP16 equals its FP32, meaning no packed math acceleration. The Quadro's FP16 advantage is 10x over the RX 460's FP16.

The RX 460 has no power connectors, drawing all its power from the PCIe slot, and its display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro RTX 5000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The Quadro's predecessor is listed as Quadro Volta and its successor as Workstation Ampere, while the RX 460's predecessor is Pirate Islands and its successor is Polaris. The Quadro was released on 2018-08-12, and the RX 460 on 2016-08-07, roughly two years apart.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon RX 460 scores 17,855. The Quadro leads by 342.4%.

Q: Does the RX 460 win any benchmark against the Quadro RTX 5000?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Quadro RTX 5000 wins both. The RX 460 has no recorded head-to-head victory.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 20,198 for the RX 460, a delta of 357% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the RX 460 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The RX 460 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What power connectors does each card require?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a 230 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RX 460 requires no power connectors, has a 75 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins in every scenario where raw compute performance matters. The OpenCL score of 78,999 and Vulkan score of 92,309 place it far beyond the RX 460's reach. For applications that leverage FP32 throughput, the Quadro's 11.15 TFLOPS versus 2.150 TFLOPS gives it a 5.2x advantage. The 16 GB memory capacity also makes it suitable for large datasets, while the RX 460's 2 GB would be a limiting factor. The Quadro's 384 tensor cores and 48 RT cores open up workloads in AI inference and ray-traced rendering that the RX 460 cannot handle at all. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and USB Type-C port also make the Quadro more flexible for multi-display professional setups.

The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins in scenarios where power and physical constraints dominate. Its 75 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connectors, making it compatible with systems that lack PCIe power cables. The 250 W suggested PSU is far more modest than the Quadro's 550 W requirement. At 170 mm in length, the RX 460 fits in compact cases where the 267 mm Quadro would not. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the Quadro's x16, is sufficient for its lower bandwidth demands. The RX 460 also has a DVI output, which the Quadro lacks, useful for older monitors. For a secondary display card, a low-power HTPC, or a system with a weak power supply, the RX 460 is the only sensible choice from this pairing.

The data also shows the RX 460's closest competitors are mid-range parts like the Intel Arc A770M and AMD FirePro D500, all clustered around 18,000 to 18,500 average score. The Quadro RTX 5000 competes with parts like the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB and RTX A4000 Mobile, all around 21,000 to 22,000. The performance class difference is consistent across the board. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 21,629 is 17.7% higher than the RX 460's 18,373, but the head-to-head deltas of 342.4% and 357% show that the average score does not capture how much faster the Quadro is in the specific tests they share. The RX 460's percentile ranking of 62 versus the Quadro's 67 also understates the gap, because the percentile includes many GPUs that do not appear in the head-to-head tests.

For professional workloads, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the clear choice. Its Turing architecture with RT and tensor cores, 16 GB of GDDR6, and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a workstation-class card. The RX 460 is an entry-level part from the Polaris generation, designed for basic graphics output rather than compute. The two-year release gap between them (2016 for the RX 460, 2018 for the Quadro) also reflects their different positions in the market. The Quadro RTX 5000 is end-of-life with a successor in Workstation Ampere, and the RX 460 is end-of-life with a successor in Polaris. Both are legacy products, but the Quadro remains far more capable in every recorded benchmark.