AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro M5100 is the stronger pick for raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6830 beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE’s 6389 by 6.9%. That is a decisive margin for a database entry, so if you need the most OpenCL throughput per dollar of engineering effort, the M5100 is the one.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE is not without merit, but the data is clear: it wins zero head-to-head benchmarks here. Its only consolation is that it sits at the 37th percentile versus the M5100’s 38th, meaning both are mid-pack performers in the broader GPU landscape.

For a builder deciding between these two end-of-life cards, the choice hinges on form factor and interface. The M5100 is an MXM module, designed for laptops and compact systems. The GTX 460 SE is a dual-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. If you are upgrading a mobile workstation, the M5100 is your only option. If you are building a desktop, the GTX 460 SE fits, but you will sacrifice 6.9% compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is generational. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. That process difference explains a lot: the M5100 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The GTX 460 SE has more transistors — 1,950 million — but spreads them across a much larger 332 mm² die, yielding a density of just 5.9M per mm². The M5100 is more than twice as dense.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 108.8 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has a wider bus and higher raw bandwidth, but the M5100 compensates with more memory capacity.

Feature sets diverge as well. The M5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12, but the M5100 is at 12 (11_1) while the GTX 460 SE is at 12 (11_0). OpenGL 4.6 is common to both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6389. The delta is 6.9% in favor of AMD. That is not a small gap — it is a meaningful performance lead in a compute-oriented workload.

Looking at the rival landscape reinforces this. The M5100’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 at 6764 (1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (2% slower). The GTX 460 SE’s nearest rivals tell a different story: it is exactly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M at 6389 (0% delta), and it is 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330. In other words, the M5100 competes with cards that are slightly faster than the GTX 460 SE’s peer group.

The M5100 also has a higher average benchmark score of 6830 versus the GTX 460 SE’s 6389. This is a consistent lead, not a one-off result. When you look at the wins tally, the M5100 takes 1 win and the GTX 460 SE takes 0. That is a clean sweep.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, which is 6.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE’s 6389.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 460 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The M5100 has a slightly newer feature level.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5. The M5100 has double the capacity.

Q: Is there any Vulkan support on either card?

A: Only the AMD FirePro M5100 lists Vulkan support, at version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M5100 is 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and 2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010. The GTX 460 SE is exactly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M and 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has a density of 12.2M transistors per mm², compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE’s 5.9M per mm². The M5100 is more than twice as dense.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins in every benchmark where the two are directly compared. Its 6.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration, which is relevant for certain professional workloads. It also wins on memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), newer API support (Vulkan 1.2.170), and a modern 28 nm process with much higher transistor density. If you are working in a mobile form factor — the M5100 is an MXM module — this is the only viable option.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE does have its advantages, but they are not in raw compute. It has a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth at 108.8 GB/s versus the M5100’s 72.00 GB/s. That could matter for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, though the benchmark data does not show a win for NVIDIA in any tested scenario. It also has a higher texture rate at 31.20 GTexel/s versus the M5100’s 31.00 GTexel/s, but the margin is negligible. The GTX 460 SE has more ROPs (32 versus 16) and more TMUs (48 versus 40), which could help in certain rasterization-heavy workloads, but again, the data does not confirm this.

The GTX 460 SE is a dual-slot desktop card with a 210 mm length and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. It requires a 450 W suggested PSU and uses 2x 6-pin power connectors. Its TDP is 150 W. The M5100 has no TDP listed, but it is an MXM module, so it is designed for power-constrained laptops. If you are building a desktop and need a card that fits a standard PCIe slot, the GTX 460 SE is the one — but you are accepting a 6.9% compute deficit.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro M5100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | None listed |

| Boost Clock | 775 MHz | None listed |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 288 |

| TMUs | 40 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.40 GPixel/s | 7.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.00 GTexel/s | 31.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 992.0 GFLOPS | 748.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | None listed | 150 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | None |

| Length | None listed | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 160 USD |

The specification list shows a clear generational split. The M5100 is a 28 nm part with more shading units (640 versus 288), more FP32 throughput (992.0 GFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS), and a higher pixel rate (12.40 GPixel/s versus 7.800 GPixel/s). The GTX 460 SE counters with a wider memory bus, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher texture rate. But in the only benchmark that matters here, the M5100 wins by 6.9%.