AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6389, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. The NVIDIA card wins this benchmark by a 2.7% margin.

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

A: The GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M at an identical 6389 (0% delta) and the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 (-0.3%). The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon HD 6950 at 6210 (0.2% ahead) and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (-0.7%).

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths of each card?

A: The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 108.8 GB/s. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has nearly 70% more memory bandwidth, while the AMD card has double the capacity.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput in FP32?

A: The FirePro W600 produces 768.0 GFLOPS, marginally ahead of the GTX 460 SE's 748.8 GFLOPS — a difference of about 2.6% in favor of AMD, despite the NVIDIA card winning the overall benchmark.

Q: What are the TDP and power connector requirements?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a suggested 450 W PSU. The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and works with a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD FirePro W600 lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.170). The GTX 460 SE lists no Vulkan support, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0 for NVIDIA, 11_1 for AMD) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The benchmark data delivers a clear but narrow verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE wins the only head-to-head test, scoring 6389 against the FirePro W600's 6223, a 2.7% advantage. However, this is a single-benchmark comparison, and the two cards are separated by less than 3% in overall compute performance — statistically a near-tie.

For users who prioritize raw compute speed in a single OpenCL workload, the GTX 460 SE is the pick. Its 37th percentile ranking versus the FirePro's 36th reflects this edge, and its 256-bit memory bus (108.8 GB/s) gives it a substantial bandwidth advantage that helps in memory-intensive tasks.

For users who prioritize power efficiency, physical footprint, and display versatility, the FirePro W600 is the pick. It draws half the power (75 W vs 150 W), requires no external power connectors, fits in a single slot, and drives six mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the GTX 460 SE's two DVI and one mini-HDMI. The FirePro also offers double the VRAM (2 GB vs 1 GB) and Vulkan support, which the NVIDIA card lacks entirely.

The verdict splits by use case: the GTX 460 SE wins on pure benchmark performance and memory throughput; the FirePro W600 wins on everything else that matters for a workstation deployment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 460 SE scores 6389, and the FirePro W600 scores 6223. That is a 2.7% lead for NVIDIA.

To put that in context, the GTX 460 SE's score places it 0.3% behind the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell (6407) and 0.9% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330). The FirePro W600's score places it 0.2% ahead of the Radeon HD 6950 (6210) and 0.9% behind the Quadro K620 (6282).

The delta between the two cards (166 points) is smaller than the delta between the FirePro and its nearest neighbor (13 points). This means the two cards are effectively in the same performance class, and the GTX 460 SE's win is real but marginal — not a class separation.

Neither card has any other benchmark entries, so this single result is the entire quantitative comparison. The NVIDIA card wins 1 benchmark; the AMD card wins 0.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The GTX 460 SE uses a 40 nm process node with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die; the FirePro W600 uses a 28 nm node with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The FirePro's transistor density is 12.2M / mm² versus the GTX 460 SE's 5.9M / mm².

Memory configurations diverge sharply: the GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB with a 256-bit bus and 108.8 GB/s bandwidth; the FirePro W600 has 2 GB with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ — memory runs at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) on NVIDIA versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on AMD.

Compute unit counts favor AMD: 512 shading units and 32 TMUs versus NVIDIA's 288 shading units and 48 TMUs. However, NVIDIA has double the ROPs (32 vs 16). The pixel rate goes to AMD at 12.00 GPixel/s versus 7.800 GPixel/s, while the texture rate goes to NVIDIA at 31.20 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 output is nearly identical: 768.0 GFLOPS for AMD versus 748.8 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specs are a major differentiator. The GTX 460 SE draws 150 W with a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin connectors, and a 450 W PSU suggestion. The FirePro W600 draws 75 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and needs only a 250 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is 210 mm long; the AMD card is 168 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 20 mm wide.

Bus interface and outputs differ: PCIe 2.0 x16 with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for NVIDIA; PCIe 3.0 x16 with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for AMD. API support also differs — DirectX 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA versus DirectX 12 (11_1) for AMD, and Vulkan 1.2.170 only on the AMD side.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 460 SE is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, part of the GeForce 400 generation. The FirePro W600 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. These are fundamentally different GPU designs from different eras — Fermi launched in November 2010, while GCN 1.0 arrived in June 2012.

The transistor budgets tell the story of architectural divergence. NVIDIA packs 1,950 million transistors into 332 mm² on a 40 nm TSMC process, achieving 5.9M transistors per mm². AMD fits 1,500 million transistors into just 123 mm² on a 28 nm TSMC process, achieving 12.2M per mm² — more than double the density. The smaller die and newer node explain the FirePro's dramatically lower power draw.

The shader architectures differ in organization. NVIDIA uses 288 shading units with 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while AMD uses 512 shading units with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The AMD design has 78% more shader cores but a narrower memory path, which is why its FP32 throughput (768.0 GFLOPS) barely edges out NVIDIA's (748.8 GFLOPS) despite the larger shader count.

Memory architecture is a key divergence. NVIDIA's 256-bit bus with 108.8 GB/s bandwidth is a wide, fast path; AMD's 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s is half the width and roughly 41% of the bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE compensates for its smaller 1 GB capacity with speed, while the FirePro W600 prioritizes capacity at 2 GB.

Feature support diverges on the API front. AMD offers Vulkan 1.2.170; NVIDIA lists no Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA implementation is capped at 11_0 while AMD reaches 11_1. The FirePro's six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the GTX 460 SE's two DVI plus mini-HDMI 1.3a reflect different target markets — multi-display workstation versus consumer gaming.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460 SE wins in:

• Raw benchmark performance — 6389 versus 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 2.7% lead.
• Memory bandwidth — 108.8 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 70% advantage that benefits texture-heavy workloads.
• Texture throughput — 31.20 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, a 30% edge.
• ROP throughput — 32 ROPs versus 16, doubling pixel fill operations per clock (though the FirePro's higher pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s vs 7.800 GPixel/s complicates this — the NVIDIA card's ROP count is still a structural advantage).
• PCIe compatibility — though older (2.0 vs 3.0), the 256-bit memory bus is the bigger factor for data movement.

The FirePro W600 wins in:

• Power efficiency — 75 W versus 150 W, halving the power draw and enabling a single-slot, no-connector design.
• Memory capacity — 2 GB versus 1 GB, doubling available VRAM for large datasets.
• FP32 compute — 768.0 GFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS, a 2.6% edge in raw math throughput.
• API support — Vulkan 1.2.170 support that the GTX 460 SE lacks entirely, plus a higher DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 vs 11_0).
• Display outputs — 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI plus 1x mini-HDMI, offering triple the display connections for multi-monitor setups.
• Physical footprint — 168 mm length versus 210 mm, and single-slot versus dual-slot, making it far easier to install in dense systems.
• Shading units — 512 versus 288, which explains its FP32 advantage despite the narrower memory bus.

For a workstation that runs OpenCL workloads, the GTX 460 SE delivers the higher score. For a system that needs low power, multiple displays, and modern API support, the FirePro W600 is the more versatile choice. The data shows a 2.7% performance gap and a 50% power gap — the FirePro trades a small amount of speed for a dramatically more flexible and efficient design.