Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 and the Intel Arc A310 is decisively one-sided. The Arc A310 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a massive margin: 30,607 versus 8,743, a 71.4% lead. That is not a narrow victory; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute performance.

For the GTX 460 v2, the data paints a picture of obsolescence. It holds a 44th percentile rank among all GPUs, meaning more than half of the recorded GPUs outperform it. Its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (delta 0%) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (delta -1.4%), cluster tightly around its score, showing it sits in a crowded mid-to-low tier of performance.

The Intel Arc A310, despite a lower overall percentile rank of 40, delivers over three times the OpenCL throughput. Its average benchmark score of 7,550 is dragged down by weak legacy DirectX tests, but its modern API support and compute capabilities are the clear story. The verdict is simple: if you need raw compute and modern feature support, the Arc A310 is the only rational choice. The GTX 460 v2 is a relic for compatibility testing, not performance.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a single head-to-head test, and the Arc A310 wins it outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel card scores 30,607 against the GTX 460 v2's 8,743. That is the only direct comparison available, and it is a total victory for Intel.

However, the GTX 460 v2 does have a marginal claim in legacy API scenarios, based on its DirectX 12 (11_0) support and older architecture. The Arc A310's PassMark scores show a different story: it scores 69 in DirectX 9, 33 in DirectX 11, 31 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. These are all low numbers, suggesting the A310's drivers prioritize modern workloads. The GTX 460 v2, with its Fermi 2.0 architecture, was built for an era when DirectX 11 was the standard, and its 1,046.3 GFLOPS FP32 output was respectable for 2011.

In practical terms, the Arc A310 wins every modern workload: OpenCL compute, Vulkan (scoring 28,964 in Geekbench Vulkan), and any task using DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The GTX 460 v2 wins nothing in the recorded data except historical interest. Its 96.19 GB/s memory bandwidth and 192-bit bus are dwarfed by the A310's 124.0 GB/s on a 64-bit bus, showing Intel's efficiency advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, and the data quantifies it clearly. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture, built 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. This is a large, hot, and inefficient chip by modern standards.

The Intel Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It fits 7,200 million transistors into just 157 mm², achieving a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. That is nearly eight times the transistor density of the Fermi chip, explaining how Intel delivers 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 performance while the GTX 460 v2 manages only 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems differ radically. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 96.19 GB/s. The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, but its higher clock speed yields 124.0 GB/s. The A310 also features 6 ray tracing cores, while the GTX 460 v2 has none. Intel's card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA card only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed.

Power efficiency is the starkest contrast. The GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W and requires dual-slot cooling with two 6-pin connectors. The Arc A310 draws just 30 W, is single-slot, and needs no power connectors at all. The suggested PSU drops from 450 W to 200 W. This is not an incremental improvement; it is a fundamental redesign of what a GPU can do per watt.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310. It scores 30,607 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GTX 460 v2's 8,743, and its FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS compared to 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 460 v2 has no ray tracing cores, while the Arc A310 has 6 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The Arc A310, decisively. It has a 30 W TDP versus 160 W for the GTX 460 v2, and requires no external power connectors compared to two 6-pin connectors.

Q: Can the GTX 460 v2 run modern APIs?

A: The GTX 460 v2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 460 v2 ranks at the 44th percentile, while the Arc A310 ranks at the 40th percentile. However, the Arc A310's average score is dragged down by weak legacy DirectX tests, not its modern compute ability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The Arc A310 scores 30,607, while the GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743. The delta is -71.4% from Intel's perspective, meaning the NVIDIA card achieves less than a third of the A310's score.

This single result aligns with the architectural data. The Arc A310's FP32 throughput of 2.688 TFLOPS is 2.57 times higher than the GTX 460 v2's 1,046.3 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 28.00 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 56.00 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. Every measurable compute metric favors Intel.

The GTX 460 v2's nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, delta 0%) and the Quadro P2200 (8,686, delta 0.7%), showing it performs at a similar level to entry-level mobile GPUs from much later generations. The Arc A310's rivals are closer in average score, like the Radeon R7 250 (7,557, delta -0.1%) and the GTX 1650 (7,472, delta 1%), but its OpenCL score is far above all of them. This suggests the A310's average is pulled down by PassMark legacy tests, not by its actual compute capability.

In PassMark, the A310 scores 5,433 in G3D and 2,157 in GPU compute, with 625 in G2D. These are modest numbers, but they do not reflect the OpenCL result. The GTX 460 v2 has no PassMark scores in the database, so no further comparison is possible. The data is clear: in the one test where both compete, Intel wins by a factor of 3.5.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification field. Here are the key differences from the database:

• Process node: GTX 460 v2 is 40 nm; Arc A310 is 6 nm.
• Transistors: 1,950 million versus 7,200 million.
• Die size: 332 mm² versus 157 mm².
• Transistor density: 5.9M / mm² versus 45.9M / mm².
• Memory clock: 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 1,024 MB GDDR5 versus 4 GB GDDR6.
• Memory bus width: 192-bit versus 64-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 96.19 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: 336 versus 768.
• TMUs: 56 versus 32.
• ROPs: 24 versus 16.
• RT cores: None versus 6.
• Pixel rate: 10.91 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 43.62 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1,046.3 GFLOPS versus 2.688 TFLOPS.
• FP16: Not listed versus 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 160 W versus 30 W.
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot.
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus None.
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 200 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0.
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2).
• Vulkan support: Not listed versus 1.4.
• Release date: 2011-09-23 versus 2022-10-11.
• Launch MSRP: 199 USD for the GTX 460 v2, none listed for the Arc A310.