NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE are both Fermi-generation parts from NVIDIA, but they target very different corners of the market. The Quadro 5000 is a professional workstation card, while the GTX 460 SE is a consumer gaming product. In the single benchmark recorded in the database, the OpenCL workload, the Quadro 5000 scores 7289, which is 14.1% higher than the GTX 460 SE’s score of 6389. That raw lead is the foundation of this comparison, but the two cards have architectural differences that explain why one wins and what that means for different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 5000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 7289 against the GTX 460 SE’s 6389, a 14.1% advantage. This is a clear, single-data-point victory. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute workload, so the Quadro 5000’s higher score suggests it is better suited for tasks that stress raw parallel computation, such as rendering, simulation, or other professional applications. The Quadro 5000 also holds a 40th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile. Although the percentile gap is small, the absolute score difference is consistent.

The GTX 460 SE does not win any benchmark in this dataset. Its only recorded score is the same 6389 OpenCL result, and it trails the Quadro 5000 in that test. However, looking at the GTX 460 SE’s nearest rivals gives some context. Its score is exactly matched by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M, and it is only 0.3% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell, a far newer and more expensive card. That suggests the GTX 460 SE’s score is not weak for its class; it is simply outclassed by the Quadro 5000 in this specific test. For gaming-oriented tasks, the database does not list a gaming benchmark, so no conclusion on gaming wins can be drawn. The data only supports that the Quadro 5000 has the higher OpenCL score, and the GTX 460 SE has no recorded wins in any category.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture and use a 40 nm process node from TSMC, with the same transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The similarity ends there. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, which is a large die measuring 529 mm² and containing 3,100 million transistors. The GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip, a smaller die at 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. The GF100 is the bigger, more compute-heavy silicon, which aligns with the Quadro line’s focus on professional accuracy and throughput.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 raster operation units. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has more shaders and ROPs, while the GTX 460 SE has more TMUs. This partially explains the performance split in different workload types. The Quadro’s higher ROP count is often beneficial for pixel-heavy output, which matters in professional graphics. The GTX 460 SE’s higher TMU count helps with texture-heavy tasks, but the database records no test that isolates that advantage.

Memory is another big split. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 108.8 GB/s. The Quadro’s larger memory capacity and wider bus are typical workstation features, allowing larger datasets to reside on-card. The memory clock differs: the Quadro runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GTX 460 SE runs at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective). Even with a higher clock, the GTX 460 SE’s narrower bus and smaller capacity cap its overall bandwidth.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware. The Quadro 5000 has a pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 22.57 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 SE is lower on pixels at 7.800 GPixel/s but higher on textures at 31.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is close: the Quadro delivers 722.3 GFLOPS, the GTX 460 SE delivers 748.8 GFLOPS. So the GTX actually has a slight edge in raw FP32 throughput on paper, yet the OpenCL benchmark shows the Quadro winning by 14.1%. This suggests that the Quadro’s larger memory, higher ROP count, and possibly better compute scheduling in professional workloads push it ahead.

The power draw is nearly identical. The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W, the GTX 460 SE is at 150 W. Both are dual-slot cards. The Quadro uses a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 460 SE uses two 6-pin connectors. Both have a suggested PSU of 450 W. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for both. The display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GTX 460 SE has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The Quadro’s DisplayPort outputs are a professional feature for high-end monitors. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither lists Vulkan support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 5000 scores 7289, and the GTX 460 SE scores 6389. The Quadro wins by 14.1%. This is a significant margin, roughly a one-in-seven difference. In practical terms, a 14.1% lead in a compute workload means the Quadro 5000 will finish that task noticeably faster. For a professional who renders or runs simulations, that is a meaningful time saving.

To put the Quadro’s score in context, its nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce GTX 750 at 7222, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203, the GTX 560 SE at 7171, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7170. The Quadro 5000 is only 0.9% ahead of the GTX 750, so its win over the GTX 460 SE is not because the Quadro is a champion; its score is narrow above those competitors. But the GTX 460 SE’s rivals include the GTX 580M at 6389, the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330, and the Radeon R7 M350 at 6327. The GTX 460 SE matches the GTX 580M exactly, and it is 0.3% behind the RTX PRO 5000, which is surprising because the RTX PRO is a modern workstation card. The GTX 460 SE is clearly a competent performer for its age, but the Quadro 5000 is ahead in this test.

There are no other benchmark entries, so this is the sole basis for comparison. The data shows a single 14.1% delta, which is the only quantitative difference in performance. No gaming tests, no multi-core or single-core splits, no Vulkan or DirectX tests exist in the database for these two cards. The analysis must rest on this one OpenCL result.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Quadro 5000 is the stronger card in compute performance, as measured by the Geekbench OpenCL score. If the task is any workload that uses OpenCL, such as rendering, simulations, or data processing, the Quadro 5000 is, on average, 14.1% faster. The 2.5 GB memory capacity and 320-bit bus also give it a strong edge for storing larger datasets, which is typical for professional applications. The Quadro’s 40 ROPs and 352 shaders are a layout that aligns with professional geometry and pixel processing.

The GTX 460 SE is not a poor card; it just loses this comparison. Its FP32 output is slightly higher at 748.8 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is higher at 31.20 GTexel/s, meaning it has some theoretical advantages in those specific areas, but the database’s OpenCL test does not reflect those as a win. The GTX 460 SE’s 1024 MB memory is a limitation for modern workloads, and its 256-bit bus is narrower. If the data had a texture-heavy benchmark, the GTX 460 SE might show a win, but no such data exists.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the database, a user who needs the highest OpenCL score should choose the Quadro 5000. The 14.1% lead is real, and the larger memory capacity gives it more headroom for professional datasets. The Quadro’s launch MSRP is 2,499 USD. That is the only price available to mention. The GTX 460 SE has a launch MSRP of 160 USD, but this analysis does not cover value or cost. The GTX 460 SE is a consumer card with a smaller memory and lower OpenCL score. If the primary usage is gaming or consumer graphics, the database has no evidence that the Quadro 5000 is better; but it also has no evidence that the GTX 460 SE wins anywhere. The only winner is the Quadro 5000.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 than the GTX 460 SE in the database benchmark?

A: The Quadro 5000 scores 7289 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 460 SE scores 6389. The Quadro 5000 is 14.1% ahead.

Q: Which card has more memory and what is the difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB (1 GB). The Quadro 5000 also has a wider 320-bit bus versus the GTX 460 SE’s 256-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture and are built on the same 40 nm TSMC process. However, they use different chips: the Quadro 5000 uses GF100, the GTX 460 SE uses GF104.

Q: Is the GTX 460 SE ever a better performer than the Quadro 5000 in any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The GTX 460 SE has 0 wins in the head-to-head benchmarks; the Quadro 5000 has 1 win. The GTX 460 SE’s score of 6389 is lower in every recorded test.

Q: What are the power connector requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 5000 requires a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 460 SE requires two 6-pin connectors. Both have the same suggested PSU of 450 W and the same TDP range (152 W vs 150 W).

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Quadro 5000’s GF100 chip has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 460 SE’s GF104 chip has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE |

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

| Chip | GF100 | GF104 |

| Gen and | Quadro Fermi (x000) | GeForce 400 |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2.5 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus | 320 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 352 | 288 |

| TMUs | 44 | 48 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.29 GPixel/s | 7.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.57 GTexel/s | 31.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.3 GFLOPS | 748.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 152 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Release Date | 2011-02-22 | 2010-11-14 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | GeForce 200 |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 500 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 160 USD |