Radeon Pro 460 vs R9 M295X Mac Edition

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition with Radeon Pro 460, including specs and performance data.

R9 M295X Mac Edition
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.39
+49.6%

R9 M295X Mac Edition outperforms Pro 460 by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking378481
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.7117.71
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameAmethystBaffin
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 November 2014 (9 years ago)30 October 2016 (8 years ago)

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 cores20481024
Core clock speed850 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data907 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate108.858.05
Floating-point processing power3.482 TFLOPS1.858 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12864

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1362 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth174.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

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 HD55−60
+37.5%
40
−37.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how R9 M295X Mac Edition and Pro 460 compete in popular games:

  • R9 M295X Mac Edition is 38% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.39 8.95
Recency 23 November 2014 30 October 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 35 Watt

R9 M295X Mac Edition has a 49.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro 460, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 614.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition is a notebook graphics 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.


AMD Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
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.


2.8 6 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition 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.