AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 are two end-of-life cards from different worlds: a professional workstation GPU built on GCN 1.0 and a consumer Fermi 2.0 part. The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the FirePro W5000, which takes the only head-to-head benchmark by a 12.1 percent margin, but the two cards occupy different niches and their specification sheets diverge sharply in ways that matter beyond raw compute scores. This analysis walks through where each one wins, how the underlying silicon differs, and what the numbers say about which card suits which workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database contains a single direct comparison between these two cards, and it goes decisively to the FirePro W5000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test the W5000 scores 9,803 against 8,743 for the GTX 460 v2, a 12.1 percent advantage for the AMD card. That is the full extent of the recorded head-to-head results: one test, one win, one loss, with no wins recorded for the GTX 460 v2.

Looking at each card against the broader database population rather than against each other, the W5000 sits in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 v2 sits in the 44th percentile. The gap is modest in percentile terms, but the company each keeps is telling. The W5000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at an average score of 9,780 (just 0.2 percent below the W5000), the Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (-0.3 percent), the Quadro 6000 at 9,846 (-0.4 percent), and the Tesla M10 at 9,724 (0.8 percent below). The GTX 460 v2's neighborhood is populated by the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (a dead-even delta of 0 percent), the Quadro P2200 at 8,686 (0.7 percent below), the Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (-1.2 percent), and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (-1.4 percent). In practical terms, the W5000 trades blows with professional and later-generation consumer cards a tier above the GTX 460 v2's peer group.

Where does the GTX 460 v2 win? Not in the recorded benchmarks, but its specification sheet reveals narrow hardware advantages. Its texture fill rate of 43.62 GTexel/s exceeds the W5000's 39.60 GTexel/s, a consequence of 56 texture mapping units against 48 despite lower shading resources. Older games or texture-heavy workloads that lean on TMU throughput rather than compute could favor the Fermi card. Its memory clock is also higher, at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) against 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), though the narrower bus negates most of that advantage, as the memory sections below show.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from consecutive-but-divergent design philosophies. The FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, while the GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture, placed in the GeForce 400 generation. Both were fabricated at TSMC, but on very different nodes: 28 nm for the W5000 and 40 nm for the GTX 460 v2.

The node difference drives a dramatic gap in transistor density and die economics. The W5000 packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 460 v2 carries 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, at just 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. In other words, the AMD part delivers roughly 44 percent more transistors on a die about 36 percent smaller, more than doubling the density of the NVIDIA part.

Feature support also splits along architectural lines. The W5000 offers DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 v2 stops at DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0 and lists no Vulkan support at all. Both expose OpenGL 4.6. On the interface side, the W5000 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 while the GTX 460 v2 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which matters for bandwidth between the host and the card. Display output reflects their market positioning: the workstation card provides one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the consumer card provides two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a output.

Lineage differs too. The W5000 succeeded the FirePro Terascale line and was itself followed by the Radeon Pro Polaris generation. The GTX 460 v2 followed the GeForce 200 series and preceded the GeForce 500 family. Both are now end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head test, and it is not close.

Geekbench OpenCL: FirePro W5000 at 9,803 versus GTX 460 v2 at 8,743. The W5000 wins by 12.1 percent. This is a general compute benchmark exercising the OpenCL pipeline, and the result aligns with the raw shader capability gap: the W5000's 768 shading units produce 1,267.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute against 1,046.3 GFLOPS from the GTX 460 v2's 336 shading units. That is roughly a 21 percent theoretical compute advantage that materializes as a 12 percent measured advantage, a reasonable translation given memory and clock constraints.

Pixel throughput tells an even more lopsided story. The W5000's 32 render output processors deliver 26.40 GPixel/s, while the GTX 460 v2's 24 ROPs manage 10.91 GPixel/s, less than half the AMD card's rate. Any workload bound by pixel fill, from high-resolution output to compositing, heavily favors the W5000.

Texture fill is the one rate-based metric the GTX 460 v2 takes, at 43.62 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s for the W5000, roughly a 10 percent edge driven by its 56 TMUs. Memory bandwidth is close but still favors AMD: 102.4 GB/s on a 256-bit bus versus 96.19 GB/s on a 192-bit bus, despite the NVIDIA card's faster memory chips.

Against the wider database, the W5000's 9,803 average score puts it within 0.2 percent of the GeForce GTX 1070 and within half a percent of the Quadro M2000M and Quadro 6000, professional cards it effectively matches. The GTX 460 v2's 8,743 average is statistically indistinguishable from the RTX 3050 A Mobile (delta of 0 percent) and sits 1.2 to 1.4 percent behind the Radeon R9 M265X and Radeon Pro WX 5100.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two cards differ, item by item:

• Chip and architecture: Pitcairn on GCN 1.0 (W5000) versus GF114 on Fermi 2.0 (GTX 460 v2).
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) versus GeForce 400.
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm, both at TSMC.
• Transistors and die: 2,800 million on 212 mm² (13.2M/mm²) versus 1,950 million on 332 mm² (5.9M/mm²).
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB of GDDR5.
• Memory clock: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Bus width and bandwidth: 256 bit / 102.4 GB/s versus 192 bit / 96.19 GB/s.
• Shading units: 768 versus 336.
• TMUs: 48 versus 56.
• ROPs: 32 versus 24.
• Pixel rate: 26.40 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 39.60 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s.
• FP32 compute: 1,267.2 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.
• TDP: 75 W versus 160 W.
• Slot width: Single-slot versus dual-slot.
• Power connectors: None versus 2x 6-pin; suggested PSU of 250 W versus 450 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0); Vulkan 1.2.170 versus no listed support.
• Dimensions: 183 mm long, 111 mm high versus 210 mm long.
• Release date: August 2012 versus September 2011.
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD versus 199 USD.
• Predecessor/successor: FirePro Terascale to Radeon Pro Polaris versus GeForce 200 to GeForce 500.

The power profile deserves emphasis. The W5000 draws 75 W, needs no auxiliary power connectors, and fits a single slot, while the GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, occupies two slots, and carries a 450 W suggested PSU rating. The AMD card also runs shorter at 183 mm versus 210 mm, making it the easier physical fit in constrained systems.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The FirePro W5000. It wins the recorded Geekbench OpenCL comparison 9,803 to 8,743, a 12.1 percent margin, and posts higher FP32 compute (1,267.2 versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS) and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 versus 96.19 GB/s).

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 beat the W5000 at anything?

A: Yes, in texture fill rate: 43.62 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s, thanks to 56 TMUs against 48. Its memory clock is also higher (4 Gbps effective versus 3.2 Gbps effective), though its narrower 192-bit bus gives it slightly less total bandwidth.

Q: How do they compare against all GPUs in the database?

A: The W5000 sits in the 47th percentile; the GTX 460 v2 in the 44th. The W5000 lands within 0.8 percent of the GeForce GTX 1070, Quadro M2000M, Quadro 6000, and Tesla M10, while the GTX 460 v2 matches the RTX 3050 A Mobile and trails the Radeon Pro WX 5100 by 1.4 percent.

Q: Which card needs less power?

A: The W5000, by a wide margin: 75 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, versus 160 W TDP, two 6-pin connectors, and a 450 W suggested PSU for the GTX 460 v2.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both list OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the W5000 reaches feature level 11_1 and supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 460 v2 stops at feature level 11_0 with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus; the GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

The Verdict

The data points firmly to the FirePro W5000 as the stronger card. It wins the only recorded benchmark by 12.1 percent, delivers more than double the pixel fill rate, more FP32 compute, more memory on a wider bus, a more advanced feature set (PCIe 3.0, Vulkan support, DirectX feature level 11_1), and does all of it at less than half the power draw, in a single-slot form factor with no auxiliary power required. Anyone choosing between the two for compute, professional graphics work, or space- and power-constrained systems should pick the W5000 on every metric the database records.

The case for the GTX 460 v2 rests on two narrow points: a slightly higher texture fill rate and its consumer-oriented display outputs (two DVI plus mini-HDMI, versus the W5000's DisplayPort-heavy arrangement). For a legacy system that needs dual DVI outputs, or a workload specifically bound by TMU throughput, it retains a sliver of relevance. Both cards are end-of-life, so either choice is a matter of matching old hardware to a specific, limited need. In every comparison the data records, though, the FirePro W5000 comes out ahead.