NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is emphatic. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129, while the older GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282. That works out to a 76.4% delta in favor of the Pascal card—meaning the GTX 1050 Ti delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput of the Fermi-based mobile part. This is not a marginal generational step; it is a decisive rout.

In the context of their respective peer groups, both cards sit at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, but the company they keep tells a different story. The GTX 460M's closest rivals include the AMD FirePro W2100 (4,295, just 0.3% faster) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268, 0.3% slower), placing it in a cluster of low-end and legacy parts. The GTX 1050 Ti, meanwhile, trades blows with the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4,170, 0.6% slower) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4,151, 1% slower), but its OpenCL score is so far above that pack that the average benchmark score of 4,193 is dragged down by its other, non-compute tests. The 1050 Ti's OpenCL result is 4.2 times the average of its nearest rivals, while the 460M's OpenCL result is essentially identical to its own average of 4,282.

The GTX 1050 Ti also wins the only head-to-head contest recorded, taking 1 win to 0. That win is Geekbench OpenCL, and the magnitude of the victory is the headline. The 460M's 5.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 21.6 GTexel/s texture rate are dwarfed by the 1050 Ti's 44.54 GPixel/s and 66.82 GTexel/s, respectively—though those figures are not part of the head-to-head table, they reinforce the direction of the benchmark result. The 1050 Ti's FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS versus the 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS further contextualizes why the OpenCL gap is so large. When a single compute test shows a 76.4% deficit, it is because the underlying hardware is fundamentally different in capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by six years of architectural evolution and a complete change in manufacturing philosophy. The GTX 460M uses the GF106 chip, built on Fermi architecture at TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1050 Ti, by contrast, uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It crams 3,300 million transistors into just 132 mm², achieving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter—more than five times the transistor density of the older part.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The GTX 460M ships with 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, producing 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 2.5 Gbps. The GTX 1050 Ti doubles capacity to 4 GB, narrows the bus to 128-bit, but compensates with a much higher effective memory speed of 7 Gbps, yielding 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth—an 87% increase over the 460M despite the narrower interface.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The 1050 Ti quadruples the shader count to 768, raises TMUs to 48, and ROPs to 32. The shader count alone explains the bulk of the OpenCL performance gap, as does the clock speed advantage: the 1050 Ti runs at a 1,291 MHz base and 1,392 MHz boost, whereas the 460M's core clock is not listed in the data—only its memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 1050 Ti also lists a FP16 rate of 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature absent from the 460M's specifications entirely.

The feature sets diverge sharply. The 460M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 1050 Ti also adds modern display outputs—1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a—while the 460M's outputs are described as "portable device dependent," reflecting its MXM module form factor. The 460M connects via PCIe 2.0 x16; the 1050 Ti uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Power and physical dimensions also reflect their different design intents. The 460M is a 50 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for laptops. The 1050 Ti is a 75 W dual-slot card, 145 mm long and 111 mm tall, with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti is dramatically faster, scoring 18,129 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GTX 460M's 4,282—a 76.4% delta in favor of the Pascal card.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 460M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The 1050 Ti also adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the 460M lacks entirely.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti offers 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 460M provides 60.00 GB/s from 1,536 MB on a 192-bit bus at a lower 2.5 Gbps effective speed.

Q: What are the transistor density differences?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti achieves 25.0 million transistors per mm² on Samsung's 14 nm process, versus the GTX 460M's 4.9 million per mm² on TSMC's 40 nm process—a fivefold improvement in density.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, exactly four times the 192 shading units found in the GTX 460M.

Q: Is the GTX 460M still competitive in any metric?

A: The data shows no benchmark where the 460M wins. Its only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is 76.4% behind the 1050 Ti. Its nearest rivals (AMD FirePro W2100, AMD Radeon Vega 3) are all within 1% of its score.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity. The GTX 1050 Ti is the superior product in every measurable way, and the margin is enormous. Its OpenCL score of 18,129 versus 4,282 represents a 76.4% lead, and its architectural advantages—768 shading units versus 192, 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 versus 518.4 GFLOPS, 112.1 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s bandwidth—compound into a generational leap. The 1050 Ti also brings modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) and a full set of display outputs, making it usable in current desktop systems.

The GTX 460M, by contrast, is an end-of-life mobile part from the Fermi era. Its 40 nm process, 1,170 million transistors, and 50 W TDP place it in a different performance class entirely. Its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score, indicating it is firmly anchored at the bottom of the performance spectrum. Its 25th percentile ranking is shared with the 1050 Ti, but that percentile is misleading—the 1050 Ti's average benchmark score of 4,193 is heavily weighted by its DX9, DX10, and G2D tests, which are irrelevant to modern compute workloads.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is obvious. The GTX 1050 Ti is the only sensible pick for any task involving compute, modern gaming, or general GPU acceleration. The GTX 460M should only be considered if the requirement is specifically a low-power MXM module for an aging laptop, and even then, the performance penalty is severe. The 1050 Ti's 75 W TDP is modest, its dual-slot form factor is standard, and its 250 W suggested PSU is trivial for any desktop. The 460M's portable-device-dependent outputs and lack of Vulkan support make it a dead end for software written in the last decade.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF106 | GP107 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |

| Generation | GeForce 400M | GeForce 10 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 1,291 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 1,392 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1,536 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 60.00 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.400 GPixel/s | 44.54 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 66.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 518.4 GFLOPS | 2.138 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | — | 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | — | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | — | 1.4 |

| Length | — | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Height | — | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2010-09-02 | 2016-10-24 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 300M | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | GeForce 500M | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | — | 139 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |