AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs AMD Radeon R7 260X

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro 460 and AMD Radeon R7 260X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro 460

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 896
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 115 Watt
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3453 vs 3195
• Around 30% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 679 vs 523
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 44.089 vs 43.745
• Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 226.93 vs 221.539
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4664 vs 3845
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4664 vs 3845

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 260X

• Around 10% higher boost clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 907 MHz
• Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 58.05 GTexel / s
• Around 6% better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 1,858 gflops
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 804.436 vs 594.914
• Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.673 vs 3.46
• Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 vs 55.755
• Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3485 vs 1842
• Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3485 vs 1842

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 460
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 260X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3453 3195
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	679 523
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	44.089 43.745
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	594.914 804.436
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.46 3.673
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	55.755 64.088
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	226.93 221.539
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4664 3845
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1842 3485
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4664 3845
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1842 3485
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3358

Compare specifications (specs)