NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop GPU design. The GTX 460M is a Fermi-generation mobile part from 2010, while the GTX 1050 is a Pascal-generation desktop card from 2016. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap: in the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 460M scores 4,282 while the GTX 1050 scores 15,233. That represents a 71.9 percent deficit for the older card, meaning the GTX 1050 delivers roughly 3.6 times the compute performance in this specific workload. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark between these two, and the GTX 1050 wins that matchup outright. The GTX 460M fails to claim a single benchmark win in the recorded comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head result is Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-oriented test that stresses raw shading and memory throughput. The GTX 460M produces a score of 4,282 points. The GTX 1050 produces 15,233 points. The percentage difference, expressed from the perspective of the older card, is a loss of 71.9 percent. In practical terms, the GTX 1050 is not merely faster; it is in a different performance class entirely. This gap is consistent with the internal specifications recorded in the database: the GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, while the GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The shading unit count alone is more than triple on the newer card.

Texture and pixel throughput also tell a stark story. The GTX 460M records a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 5.400 GPixel/s. The GTX 1050 records 58.20 GTexel/s and 46.56 GPixel/s. The pixel rate advantage is especially pronounced: the GTX 1050 fills pixels at more than eight times the rate of the GTX 460M. This directly impacts rasterization-heavy workloads, such as traditional game rendering at higher resolutions. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The GTX 460M delivers 518.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 1050 delivers 1.862 TFLOPS, a 3.6-fold increase. No other head-to-head tests exist in the database, so the verdict on this pairing rests entirely on the Geekbench OpenCL result and the underlying architectural metrics.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460M does not win any recorded benchmark against the GTX 1050. In the single comparison available, it loses decisively. However, the older card does have one advantage that is not a performance metric: power consumption. The GTX 460M has a thermal design power of 50 watts, while the GTX 1050 draws 75 watts. For a mobile platform, this lower power draw could translate into less heat generation and longer battery life, though the database does not provide battery or thermal test results. The GTX 460M also uses no external power connectors, and neither does the GTX 1050, so both can run on slot power alone.

The GTX 1050 wins in every performance category recorded. Its memory bandwidth is 112.1 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s for the GTX 460M, a near doubling. Its memory capacity is 2 GB versus 1536 MB, a 33 percent increase. Its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16, offering double the per-lane bandwidth. The GTX 1050 also supports a broader feature set: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 support versus no Vulkan support recorded for the GTX 460M. In terms of API readiness for modern workloads, the GTX 1050 is clearly the more future-proof option.

For use cases, the GTX 460M is best suited to legacy applications from its era, such as early DirectX 11 titles, where its 60 GB/s bandwidth and 5.4 GPixel/s pixel rate may have been adequate. The GTX 1050, by contrast, handles modern DirectX 12 and Vulkan workloads, as evidenced by its recorded scores in PassMark DirectX 12 (20 points) and Geekbench Vulkan (8,995 points). The GTX 460M has no Vulkan score recorded, which suggests it either lacks support or was never tested. The GTX 1050 also shows a much higher OpenCL score (15,233) and a Metal score (7,823), indicating strong compute and Apple ecosystem support.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 460M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The transistor density is 4.9 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1050 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The transistor density is 25.0 million per square millimeter. This is a five-fold increase in density, which explains how the newer card fits more than double the shading units into a smaller physical package.

The memory subsystems differ in width and capacity. The GTX 460M uses a 192-bit bus with 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory, running at an effective 2.5 Gbps. The GTX 1050 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, running at an effective 7 Gbps. Despite the narrower bus, the much higher memory clock gives the GTX 1050 nearly double the bandwidth. This is a critical architectural improvement: modern GPUs compensate for narrower buses with faster memory clocks, and Pascal benefits from this design.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The GTX 460M has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The GTX 1050 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz. Even without knowing the GTX 460M's core clock, the shading unit count and texture rate make it clear that the GTX 1050 runs at much higher frequencies per unit. The GTX 1050 also records a FP16 performance of 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 460M has no FP16 data, indicating a lack of dedicated half-precision support.

The GTX 1050 supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This doubles the interconnect bandwidth, which matters for data transfer from CPU to GPU. The GTX 1050 has a dual-slot form factor and measures 145 mm in length, 111 mm in height. The GTX 460M uses an MXM module, which is a mobile form factor, and its dimensions are not recorded. The GTX 460M's display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent, while the GTX 1050 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. This makes the GTX 1050 far more flexible for connecting to modern monitors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282. The GTX 1050 leads by 71.9 percent.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 460M has a memory bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s using a 192-bit bus and 1536 MB of GDDR5. The GTX 1050 has 112.1 GB/s using a 128-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 1050's bandwidth is nearly double.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit counts?

A: The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, while the GTX 1050 has 640 shading units. This is a 3.33-fold increase in raw shader count.

Q: Does the GTX 460M support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is recorded for the GTX 460M. The GTX 1050 supports Vulkan 1.4 and records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,995.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1050 has a pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s, compared to 5.400 GPixel/s for the GTX 460M. The GTX 1050 is over eight times faster in this metric.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 watts, and the GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 watts. Neither card requires external power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms the GTX 460M in every measured performance category. The OpenCL score gap of 71.9 percent is massive, and the underlying specifications confirm that this is not a close contest. The GTX 1050 has more shading units, more texture units, more raster output units, higher base and boost clocks, double the memory bandwidth, more memory, and support for modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12_1. The GTX 460M belongs to a 2010 mobile era and cannot keep pace with a 2016 desktop card.

Users with a GTX 460M system should upgrade if they need any modern gaming or compute capability. The GTX 1050's 2 GB memory and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for 1080p gaming at medium settings in most titles from its time, while the GTX 460M's 1.5 GB memory and 60 GB/s bandwidth will struggle with anything beyond older or lighter games. The GTX 460M's only advantage is its lower 50-watt power draw, which may matter in a laptop where thermal limits are strict. However, the GTX 1050's 75-watt TDP is still modest by desktop standards and does not require a power connector.

The GTX 1050 also offers a path to modern connectivity with DisplayPort 1.4a and HDMI 2.0 outputs, while the GTX 460M relies on portable-device-dependent outputs. For compute tasks, the GTX 1050's 1.862 TFLOPS FP32 performance and Vulkan support make it usable for contemporary workloads, whereas the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS and lack of Vulkan leave it limited to legacy applications. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the GTX 1050 for any performance-sensitive use case. Choose the GTX 460M only if power consumption is the absolute priority and the workload is exclusively from the pre-2012 era.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded fields:

• Architecture: Fermi (GTX 460M) versus Pascal (GTX 1050)
• Process node: 40 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 3,300 million
• Die size: 238 mm² versus 132 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² versus 25.0M / mm²
• Base clock: Not recorded versus 1354 MHz
• Boost clock: Not recorded versus 1455 MHz
• Memory clock: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 1536 MB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 192 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 60.00 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s
• Shading units: 192 versus 640
• TMUs: 32 versus 40
• ROPs: 24 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 5.400 GPixel/s versus 46.56 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 21.60 GTexel/s versus 58.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 518.4 GFLOPS versus 1.862 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not recorded versus 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 50 W versus 75 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: Not recorded versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: Not recorded versus 1.4
• Dimensions: Not recorded versus 145 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release date: 2010-09-02 versus 2016-10-24
• Predecessor: GeForce 300M versus GeForce 900
• Successor: GeForce 500M versus GeForce 20
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded versus 109 USD