Radeon Pro 460 vs Quadro M2000M
Radeon Pro 460
Popular choices:
Quadro M2000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon Pro 460 is positioned at rank 176 and the Quadro M2000M is on rank 177, so the Radeon Pro 460 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro 460
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M2000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro 460 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M2000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon Pro 460 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro 460 and Quadro M2000M
Radeon Pro 460
The Radeon Pro 460 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 30 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 850 MHz to 907 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,453 points.
Quadro M2000M
The Quadro M2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 3 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1098 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,410 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro 460 scores 3,453 and the Quadro M2000M reaches 3,410 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro 460 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Quadro M2000M uses Maxwell, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Radeon Pro 460) vs 640 (Quadro M2000M). Raw compute: 1.858 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 460) vs 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000M). Boost clocks: 907 MHz vs 1098 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,453+1% | 3,410 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024+60% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.858 TFLOPS+32% | 1.405 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 907 MHz | 1098 MHz+21% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64+60% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 320 KB+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro 460 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M2000M has 4 GB. The Quadro M2000M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon Pro 460) vs 2 MB (Quadro M2000M) — the Quadro M2000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 460 draws 35W versus the Quadro M2000M's 55W — a 44.4% difference. The Radeon Pro 460 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro 460) vs 350W (Quadro M2000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 35W-36% | 55W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 98.7+59% | 62.0 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro 460 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 460 | Quadro M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | — |
| Codename | Baffin | GM107 |
| Release | October 30 2016 | December 3 2015 |
| Ranking | #547 | #550 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro 460 and Quadro M2000M
