NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 occupy very different positions in the database despite landing in adjacent performance territory. The GTX 460 is a discrete gaming card from the GeForce 400 generation, built on the Fermi architecture and the GF104 chip, while the GT 1010 is a low-power entry card from the GeForce 10 generation, built on Pascal with the GP108 chip. Across the recorded measurements, the GTX 460 holds the lead in the one head-to-head benchmark available, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test by a decisive 18.3 percent margin. The GT 1010 answers with dramatically lower power draw, a much newer feature set, and a smaller physical footprint, which makes this a classic contest between raw throughput and modern efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460 wins where compute throughput and memory bandwidth dominate. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7925 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, ahead of its nearest rivals by narrow margins: it sits 0.2 percent above the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, 1.4 percent above the Quadro P5000, 1.4 percent above the GeForce GTX 880M, and 1.6 percent above the GeForce GTX 650 Ti. Its shader array is also physically larger, with 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units, against 256, 16, and 8 respectively for the GT 1010. Texture throughput tells the same story: 37.80 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s, a substantial advantage for the older card in any workload that is fill-rate or texture-bound. Memory bandwidth favors the GTX 460 as well, 86.40 GB/s against 48.06 GB/s, thanks to its wider 192-bit bus compared to the narrow 64-bit bus on the GT 1010.

The GT 1010 wins on everything that surrounds raw performance. Its thermal design power is 30 W against 160 W, it requires no auxiliary power connectors where the GTX 460 needs two 6-pin connectors, and its suggested power supply is 200 W against 450 W. It occupies a single slot instead of a dual slot, measures 147 mm in length instead of 210 mm, and connects over PCIe 3.0 x4 instead of PCIe 2.0 x16. Its pixel fill rate is actually higher, 11.74 GPixel/s against 9.450 GPixel/s, because its higher clock speeds partially compensate for the smaller rasterizer count. It also carries a more modern API surface: DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1 versus 12 with 11_0, and Vulkan 1.4 support where the GTX 460 records none.

Architecture Differences

These two cards come from opposite ends of a decade of process and design evolution. The GTX 460 was fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process, packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die, and achieves a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GT 1010 was fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process, packs 1,800 million transistors onto a far smaller 74 mm² die, and reaches 24.3M per mm², roughly four times the density of the Fermi part. Nearly the same transistor budget is squeezed into less than a quarter of the silicon area, which is the clearest single illustration of the generational gap between them.

Fermi and Pascal also differ in how they spend those transistors. The GTX 460 runs its memory at 900 MHz, delivering 3.6 Gbps effective GDDR5 across a 192-bit interface to 768 MB of VRAM. The GT 1010 runs its memory at 1502 MHz, delivering 6 Gbps effective GDDR5 across a 64-bit interface to 2 GB of VRAM, so the newer card offers more than double the memory capacity even though its aggregate bandwidth is much lower. Clock behavior differs fundamentally: the Pascal card records a 1228 MHz base clock and a 1468 MHz boost clock, while the Fermi card's database entry records no base or boost clock at all, only its memory speed.

The theoretical compute figures frame the gap precisely. The GTX 460 reaches 907.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 751.6 GFLOPS for the GT 1010, consistent with the older card's larger shader count despite its lower operating frequencies. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, so neither benefits from hardware ray tracing or dedicated machine learning acceleration. Display connectivity reflects their eras: the GTX 460 offers two DVI outputs plus mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the GT 1010 offers a single DVI output plus mini-HDMI 2.0. Both have reached end-of-life status, and the GTX 460 launched with a launch MSRP of 199 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the GT 1010.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison, and it favors the older card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 460 scores 7925 and the GT 1010 scores 6698, a margin of 18.3 percent. That is a wide gap for two cards whose percentile placements, 41 versus 38, sit only three points apart across the full GPU population. The explanation lies in the rival clusters. The GTX 460's neighbors are all NVIDIA parts clustered between 7906 and 8053, while the GT 1010's neighbors are AMD mobile-class parts: the Radeon R7 M370 at 6764, the Radeon R7 M460 at 6612, the Radeon HD 7730M at 6581, and the FirePro M5100 at 6830. The GT 1010 is 1 percent behind the R7 M370, 1.3 percent ahead of the R7 M460, 1.8 percent ahead of the HD 7730M, and 1.9 percent behind the FirePro M5100.

The specification data reinforces the benchmark outcome. The GTX 460's 56 TMUs generate 37.80 GTexel/s of texture throughput, 60 percent more than the GT 1010's 23.49 GTexel/s from its 16 TMUs. Its 24 ROPs and 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth give it the resources to feed higher-resolution output, while the GT 1010's 8 ROPs and 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth constrain it. The one throughput metric the GT 1010 wins is pixel fill rate, 11.74 GPixel/s against 9.450 GPixel/s, a direct consequence of its 1468 MHz boost clock. In practice the benchmark data indicates the GTX 460 is the stronger compute and graphics part, while the GT 1010's advantages are structural rather than measurable in OpenCL.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. A user whose priority is maximum benchmark throughput, whether for OpenCL compute or texture-heavy rendering, should pick the GTX 460: it wins the only recorded head-to-head by 18.3 percent, delivers substantially more memory bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher FP32 throughput. The cost of that performance is physical and electrical: a dual-slot, 210 mm card drawing 160 W through two 6-pin connectors, with a 450 W suggested power supply.

The GT 1010 is the correct choice where power, space, or platform compatibility are the binding constraints. It draws 30 W with no auxiliary power connectors, needs only a 200 W suggested power supply, fits a single slot, is 63 mm shorter, and connects over PCIe 3.0 x4. It also carries the newer API support, DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, alongside twice the VRAM capacity at 2 GB versus 768 MB, which matters for workloads that exceed the older card's memory ceiling. For a small-form-factor or power-limited system that cannot host the Fermi card, the GT 1010 delivers roughly 84 percent of the GTX 460's OpenCL score at under a fifth of its power draw. Neither card is competitive at the top of the database, but within their class, the recorded data favors the GTX 460 on performance and the GT 1010 on efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The GTX 460 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 7925 versus 6698 for the GT 1010, an 18.3 percent margin.

Q: How much power does each card require?

A: The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, needs two 6-pin power connectors, and carries a 450 W suggested power supply. The GT 1010 has a 30 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and carries a 200 W suggested power supply.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The newer card offers more capacity; the older card offers far more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GT 1010, at 11.74 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s for the GTX 460, driven by its 1468 MHz boost clock. The GTX 460 leads in every other throughput metric, including texture rate (37.80 versus 23.49 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (907.2 versus 751.6 GFLOPS).

Q: How do they compare against their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 460 sits in the 41st percentile, between 0.2 percent ahead of the Quadro K4100M and 1.6 percent ahead of the GTX 650 Ti. The GT 1010 sits in the 38th percentile, ranging from 1.9 percent behind the FirePro M5100 to 1.8 percent ahead of the Radeon HD 7730M.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or machine learning hardware?

A: No. Neither the GTX 460 nor the GT 1010 includes RT cores or tensor cores. Both rely on conventional shader hardware, and both have reached end-of-life status.