AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs AMD FirePro W5170M

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two mobile-era GPUs clearly: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 wins the only head-to-head test, edging out the AMD FirePro W5170M in Geekbench OpenCL by 7.4%. That single result puts the GTX 460 v2 at a score of 8,743 against the FirePro's 8,140. Both cards sit at the 44th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier, but NVIDIA comes out ahead in raw compute throughput. The GTX 460 v2's average benchmark score of 8,743 is 1.7% higher than the FirePro's 8,595 average, a margin that holds across the two benchmarks reported for the AMD part.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life products, the data points to the GTX 460 v2 if OpenCL compute performance is the priority. The AMD FirePro W5170M does have a Vulkan score of 9,050, which the GTX 460 v2 cannot match because it has no reported Vulkan benchmark — but the head-to-head comparison only covers OpenCL, and there NVIDIA wins decisively. The FirePro W5170M, however, offers double the memory capacity with 2 GB versus 1 GB, which matters for certain workloads even if raw compute scores favor the older NVIDIA chip. Neither card is a modern performer; both are end-of-life products with identical percentile rankings, so the choice hinges on specific workload requirements rather than overall class superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design schools. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a more advanced 28 nm process from the same foundry. AMD's chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter — more than double the density of the NVIDIA part.

Core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The FirePro W5170M counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The AMD part has nearly twice the shader count but fewer texture units and ROPs, which explains why its theoretical FP32 throughput of 1,184.0 GFLOPS exceeds NVIDIA's 1,046.3 GFLOPS, yet its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 37.00 GTexel/s tell a mixed story against NVIDIA's 10.91 GPixel/s and 43.62 GTexel/s. Clock behavior also differs: the GTX 460 v2 has no listed base or boost clock, while the FirePro runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost.

Memory subsystems show clear generational differences. The GTX 460 v2 uses a 192-bit bus with 1,024 MB of GDDR5 at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M uses a narrower 128-bit bus but compensates with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), though its bandwidth drops to 72.00 GB/s — 25% lower than the NVIDIA part. API support is nearly identical: both support DirectX 12 (with NVIDIA at 11_0 feature level and AMD at 11_1), and both support OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro adds Vulkan 1.2.170 support, while the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a clear winner. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743, while the AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8,140. That 7.4% delta represents a solid, if not overwhelming, victory for the older NVIDIA part. This result is notable because the FirePro has higher theoretical FP32 compute (1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS) and double the memory capacity, yet still falls behind in actual OpenCL execution.

Looking at the broader rival context reinforces the NVIDIA win. The GTX 460 v2's score of 8,743 sits within 0% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and just 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686). It trails the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851) by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) by 1.4%. The FirePro W5170M's OpenCL score of 8,140 places it 1.1% behind the Quadro P2200 and 1.6% behind both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458). The FirePro does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,050, which is higher than its own OpenCL result, but no Vulkan score exists for the GTX 460 v2 to enable a side-by-side comparison.

The wins tally reflects this: the GTX 460 v2 records 1 win in head-to-head benchmarks, while the FirePro records 0. That said, the FirePro's Vulkan result suggests it may have strengths in API-specific workloads that the OpenCL test does not capture. The data, however, only supports a single comparison, and in that comparison NVIDIA prevails.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 7.4% higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8,140.

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

A: The GTX 460 v2 is nearly identical to the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, 0% delta) and 0.7% ahead of the Quadro P2200 (8,686). The FirePro W5170M is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A380 (8,558) and 1.6% ahead of both the Radeon HD 8870M (8,462) and GeForce MX330 (8,458).

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5170M have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5170M reports a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,050, which exceeds its OpenCL score of 8,140. The GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan benchmark listed, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5, double the GTX 460 v2's 1 GB. However, the GTX 460 v2 has higher memory bandwidth at 96.19 GB/s versus the FirePro's 72.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The FirePro W5170M achieves 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter on its 123 mm² die, while the GTX 460 v2 achieves 5.9 million per square millimeter on its 332 mm² die.

Q: Are both GPUs the same performance tier?

A: Yes, both sit at the 44th percentile among all GPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close: the GTX 460 v2 averages 8,743, while the FirePro averages 8,595.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 wins in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 8,743 score beats the FirePro by 7.4%, and it also delivers higher memory bandwidth (96.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s) despite a narrower 192-bit bus versus 128-bit. The GTX 460 v2 has more texture units (56 versus 40) and more ROPs (24 versus 16), giving it a higher texture rate of 43.62 GTexel/s compared to the FirePro's 37.00 GTexel/s. For workloads that rely on texturing, memory bandwidth, or OpenCL execution, the GTX 460 v2 is the stronger choice. It also has a defined power profile at 160 W TDP with a suggested 450 W power supply, making it a predictable desktop-oriented part. Its launch MSRP was 199 USD.

The AMD FirePro W5170M wins in several other dimensions. It offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB, which benefits larger datasets that exceed the GTX 460 v2's 1 GB limit. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s beats the GTX 460 v2's 10.91 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute of 1,184.0 GFLOPS exceeds NVIDIA's 1,046.3 GFLOPS — though the OpenCL benchmark shows NVIDIA still wins in practice. The FirePro also has Vulkan 1.2.170 support, a newer feature absent from the GTX 460 v2's spec sheet. Its 28 nm process node makes it more transistor-dense (12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M), and its MXM-A (3.0) form factor with no power connectors suits mobile workstation integration, whereas the GTX 460 v2 requires a dual-slot footprint with 2x 6-pin power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on Fermi 2.0 architecture with a 40 nm process, while the FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip on GCN 1.0 with a 28 nm process. Transistor count favors NVIDIA at 1,950 million versus AMD's 1,500 million, but die size favors AMD at 123 mm² versus 332 mm². Transistor density goes to AMD at 12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds show AMD with explicit values: 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while NVIDIA lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks differ at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for AMD. Memory capacity is 1,024 MB for NVIDIA and 2 GB for AMD; bus width is 192-bit versus 128-bit; bandwidth is 96.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

Shader configuration differs significantly: NVIDIA has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; AMD has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate favors AMD at 14.80 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors NVIDIA at 43.62 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors AMD at 1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. NVIDIA lists a 160 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 6-pin power connectors, a 450 W suggested PSU, and a 210 mm length. AMD lists no TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU or dimensions. Bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus MXM-A (3.0) for AMD. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for NVIDIA, versus portable device dependent for AMD. API support matches on DirectX 12 (11_0 for NVIDIA, 11_1 for AMD) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan 1.2.170 appears only on AMD. Release dates differ by nearly three years: NVIDIA launched September 2011, AMD launched August 2014.