AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear winner. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6389, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. That is a 15.4% advantage for the GTX 460 SE. This is not a narrow margin; it is a decisive lead in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the context from the database, the GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. That five-point gap in percentile ranking reflects the score difference. The GTX 460 SE's score of 6389 puts it right alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M, which also scores 6389 with a 0% delta. The FirePro M4000's 5537 is closest to the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5604, meaning the FirePro trails that rival by 1.2%.

The delta of 15.4% is substantial for two mobile or compact GPUs from the same era. In practical terms, any OpenCL workload that scales well across shading units will finish noticeably faster on the GTX 460 SE. The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 460 SE wins this head-to-head in the only test where both have recorded data. There are no tests where the FirePro M4000 comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and fundamental. The GTX 460 SE uses NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The chip, designated GF104, packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die. That gives a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The FirePro M4000 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed Chelsea, contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M per mm². The newer process node allows AMD to fit a dense design in a smaller area.

The compute resources differ sharply. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. More shading units usually suggest higher raw ALU throughput, but the GTX 460 SE still wins the FP32 race: 748.8 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 460 SE also wins texture rate at 31.20 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. However, the FirePro M4000 wins pixel rate, 10.80 GPixel/s versus 7.800 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher memory clock and architecture efficiency despite having half the ROP count.

Memory subsystems are very different. Both have 1024 MB of GDDR5. The GTX 460 SE uses a 256-bit bus and delivers 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 uses a 128-bit bus and delivers only 64.00 GB/s. That is a 70% bandwidth advantage for the GTX 460 SE, which is a major factor in OpenCL workloads that hammer memory. Memory clock is listed as 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 460 SE and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro M4000, but the narrower bus limits the AMD part.

API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 460 SE is rated DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro M4000 is rated DirectX 12 (11_1). The FirePro M4000 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 460 SE is a desktop card with a dual-slot form factor and 2x 6-pin power connectors, while the FirePro M4000 is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices.

Power draw is a stark contrast. The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP, the FirePro M4000 just 33 W. That is a 117 W difference, making the FirePro far more suitable for thin laptops. The GTX 460 SE needs a 450 W suggested PSU, while the FirePro lists none. The GTX 460 SE has fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a), whereas the FirePro's outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products for two very different use cases. If the priority is raw OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE is the pick. It wins the only benchmark by 15.4%, has 44.8 GB/s more memory bandwidth, and delivers higher FP32 throughput. Its 37th percentile ranking is five points above the FirePro's 32nd percentile. Any workload that depends on memory bandwidth or general compute will favor the GTX 460 SE.

If the priority is power efficiency and mobility, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the pick. Its 33 W TDP is 117 W lower than the GTX 460 SE's 150 W. It fits in an MXM module with no external power connectors, while the GTX 460 SE is a dual-slot desktop card requiring 2x 6-pin power. The FirePro also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the GTX 460 SE does not. For a portable workstation, the FirePro M4000 is the only sensible choice given the power envelope.

The GTX 460 SE is older, released 2010-11-14, versus the FirePro M4000's 2012-06-26. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 460 SE had a launch MSRP of 160 USD, but the database does not list a launch price for the FirePro M4000. Neither card should be purchased for modern gaming or compute; both are surpassed by many newer parts. But within this comparison, the choice is simple: desktop compute goes to NVIDIA, mobile efficiency goes to AMD.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification. The GTX 460 SE uses a 40 nm process, the FirePro M4000 uses 28 nm. The GTX 460 SE has a 332 mm² die with 1,950 million transistors, the FirePro M4000 has a 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors. Transistor density is 5.9M / mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2M / mm² for AMD.

Shading units: 288 for the GTX 460 SE, 512 for the FirePro M4000. TMUs: 48 versus 32. ROPs: 32 versus 16. FP32 performance: 748.8 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. Texture rate: 31.20 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate: 7.800 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s. Memory bus: 256-bit versus 128-bit. Memory bandwidth: 108.8 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Memory clock: 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

TDP: 150 W versus 33 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus MXM module. Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 450 W versus none listed. Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus portable device dependent. Vulkan support: none for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD. Release date: 2010-11-14 versus 2012-06-26.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6389, which is 15.4% higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 460 SE delivers 108.8 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M4000 delivers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has a 70% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE has 288. Despite fewer units, the GTX 460 SE still achieves higher FP32 performance at 748.8 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The FirePro M4000 has a 33 W TDP and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE does not have Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: Which card has better pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTX 460 SE's 7.800 GPixel/s, despite the FirePro having only 16 ROPs compared to 32.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 15.4% benchmark lead, higher FP32 throughput (748.8 GFLOPS), higher texture rate (31.20 GTexel/s), and much higher memory bandwidth (108.8 GB/s) make it the better choice for OpenCL workloads, GPU-accelerated rendering, or any task that stresses memory. Its 37th percentile ranking also places it above the FirePro in the overall database distribution. If you have a desktop with a 450 W PSU and room for a dual-slot card, the GTX 460 SE is the stronger performer.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in power-constrained and mobile scenarios. Its 33 W TDP allows it to operate in laptops and compact MXM systems where the 150 W GTX 460 SE would be impossible to cool or power. It also has a higher pixel rate at 10.80 GPixel/s, which could benefit certain 2D or rasterization workloads despite its lower overall compute score. Vulkan support gives it an API advantage for modern applications that use that interface. The 28 nm process and smaller die (123 mm² versus 332 mm²) reflect a more modern design that is far more efficient per transistor.

The GTX 460 SE also wins on specification dominance in several categories: memory bus width (256-bit versus 128-bit), ROP count (32 versus 16), and TMU count (48 versus 32). The FirePro M4000 wins on shading units (512 versus 288), process node (28 nm versus 40 nm), and transistor density (12.2M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²). Neither card is a general-purpose winner; the choice depends entirely on whether you need raw compute or low power draw.