Radeon Pro 460 vs Quadro P4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 with Radeon Pro 460, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P4000
2017
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
30.12
+237%

P4000 outperforms Pro 460 by a whopping 237% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking185484
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.23no data
Power efficiency19.9417.77
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGP104Baffin
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)30 October 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores17921024
Core clock speed1202 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz907 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate165.858.05
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPS1.858 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs11264

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1901 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s81.28 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+
Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA6.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P4000 30.12
+237%
Pro 460 8.95

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro P4000 11622
+237%
Pro 460 3452

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD71
+86.8%
38
−86.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.48no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+264%
14−16
−264%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+195%
21−24
−195%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55
+300%
12−14
−300%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+263%
27−30
−263%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+244%
18−20
−244%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+264%
14−16
−264%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+240%
20−22
−240%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+208%
24−27
−208%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+175%
60−65
−175%
Hitman 3 60−65
+271%
16−18
−271%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+166%
50−55
−166%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+264%
27−30
−264%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+204%
24−27
−204%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+90%
60−65
−90%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+195%
21−24
−195%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55
+300%
12−14
−300%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+263%
27−30
−263%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+244%
18−20
−244%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+264%
14−16
−264%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+240%
20−22
−240%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+208%
24−27
−208%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+175%
60−65
−175%
Hitman 3 60−65
+271%
16−18
−271%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+166%
50−55
−166%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+264%
27−30
−264%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+204%
24−27
−204%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+156%
24−27
−156%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+90%
60−65
−90%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+195%
21−24
−195%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50−55
+300%
12−14
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+244%
18−20
−244%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+264%
14−16
−264%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+240%
20−22
−240%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+175%
60−65
−175%
Hitman 3 60−65
+271%
16−18
−271%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+166%
50−55
−166%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+141%
17
−141%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+90%
60−65
−90%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+204%
24−27
−204%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+235%
16−18
−235%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+229%
14−16
−229%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+256%
9−10
−256%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+250%
10−11
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+370%
35−40
−370%
Hitman 3 35−40
+208%
12−14
−208%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+232%
18−20
−232%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+375%
12−14
−375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+590%
10−11
−590%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
+184%
55−60
−184%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+240%
14−16
−240%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Hitman 3 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+319%
35−40
−319%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+414%
7−8
−414%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+273%
10−12
−273%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Pro 460 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P4000 is 87% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed Pro 460 in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.12 8.95
Recency 6 February 2017 30 October 2016
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 236.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Pro 460, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Quadro P4000
AMD Radeon Pro 460
Radeon Pro 460

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 292 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 35 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.