NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras of NVIDIA’s lineup, targeting different segments of the market. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single OpenCL benchmark, but the architectural and specification differences between these two cards are substantial and tell a clear story about their intended use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a decisive victory for the Quadro K4000. The Quadro K4000 scores 6816, while the GTX 460 SE scores 6389. This represents a delta of -6.3% for the GTX 460 SE, meaning the Quadro K4000 is 6.3% ahead in this specific compute workload. While a single test cannot fully define a card’s performance, this result is consistent with the underlying hardware specifications, which show the Quadro K4000 has a significantly higher FP32 compute rating.

The GTX 460 SE’s score of 6389 places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, with its average benchmark score also being 6389. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M, which matches its score exactly with a 0% delta, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell, which is only 0.3% faster. This suggests that the GTX 460 SE’s compute performance is on par with a high-end mobile GPU from a later generation.

The Quadro K4000’s average benchmark score is 5982, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 6816, due to its performance in other tests. It also has a Geekbench Metal score of 4166 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6964. Its average score places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which is 0.1% slower, and the AMD FirePro W4100, which is also 0.1% slower. The data shows that while the Quadro K4000 wins the direct OpenCL comparison, its overall average score is lower than the GTX 460 SE’s, highlighting that the two cards have different performance profiles across different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Quadro K4000 is the clear winner in the OpenCL compute test. This is a significant win, as OpenCL is a common API for general-purpose GPU computing, often used in professional applications for tasks like rendering and simulation. The Quadro K4000’s 6.3% lead in this test suggests it is better suited for compute-heavy professional workloads.

The GTX 460 SE, while losing the direct comparison, has a higher average benchmark score (6389) than the Quadro K4000 (5982). This is primarily due to the Quadro K4000’s lower scores in Metal and Vulkan tests, which are APIs more associated with graphics rendering and gaming. The GTX 460 SE’s higher average score indicates that it may hold up better in a broader range of tasks, even if it loses in a pure compute scenario.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Quadro K4000 is the better choice for professional compute tasks where OpenCL is the primary API. The GTX 460 SE, with its higher average score, appears to be a more balanced card that may perform relatively better in graphics-oriented workloads. However, the data does not include specific gaming or graphics benchmarks for either card, so this conclusion is based on the available API scores and the overall average.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different process nodes. The GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip, which is based on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 332 mm². The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip, based on the newer Kepler architecture, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a smaller die size of 221 mm².

These process and architecture differences lead to significant changes in transistor density. The Fermi chip packs 1,950 million transistors into its 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The Kepler chip, in contrast, contains 2,540 million transistors in a smaller 221 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 11.5M transistors per mm². This shows a major jump in manufacturing efficiency and architectural complexity.

The memory subsystems also differ considerably. The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 108.8 GB/s. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a narrower 192-bit bus, but a higher bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s. The Quadro K4000’s memory clock is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 460 SE’s 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective). This gives the Quadro K4000 a distinct advantage in memory bandwidth, which is crucial for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The compute resources are also very different. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 has a much higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s vs 7.800 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s vs 31.20 GTexel/s). Its FP32 compute rating is 1,244.2 GFLOPS, compared to the GTX 460 SE’s 748.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro K4000’s higher shading unit count and clock speeds give it a significant raw compute advantage.

Other differences include the power profile. The GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W, requiring a dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro K4000 is much more efficient, with a TDP of 80 W, a single-slot design, and only one 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro K4000 also supports Vulkan (1.2.175), while the GTX 460 SE does not have a Vulkan listing. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows that the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior card for professional compute tasks, as evidenced by its 6.3% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its architecture is newer, more efficient, and offers significantly higher compute throughput and memory bandwidth. For users who rely on OpenCL-accelerated workloads, the Quadro K4000 is the definitive choice.

The GTX 460 SE, however, has a higher average benchmark score, which suggests it may be more competitive in a wider range of tasks, particularly those that rely on graphics APIs like Metal and Vulkan, where the Quadro K4000 scores lower. Its lower memory size and bandwidth are a drawback for large datasets, but its higher ROP count may benefit certain rasterization tasks.

The choice comes down to the workload. If the primary use case is professional compute, the Quadro K4000 is the clear winner. If the user needs a more general-purpose card with a better average score across multiple APIs, the GTX 460 SE might be the better choice, despite its older architecture and higher power consumption. The Quadro K4000’s single-slot design and lower power requirements also make it a more practical option for dense workstation builds. From a pure performance-per-watt perspective, the Quadro K4000 is far more efficient. The GTX 460 SE’s launch MSRP was 160 USD, while the Quadro K4000’s launch MSRP was 1,269 USD, reflecting their different target markets.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 performs better, scoring 6816 compared to the GTX 460 SE’s 6389, a 6.3% difference.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for these two cards?

A: The GTX 460 SE has an average benchmark score of 6389, while the Quadro K4000 has an average score of 5982.

Q: Which card has a higher amount of memory?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a higher memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s, compared to the GTX 460 SE’s 108.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W, while the Quadro K4000 has a much lower TDP of 80 W.

Q: Which card supports the Vulkan API?

A: The Quadro K4000 supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175), while the GTX 460 SE does not have a Vulkan listing in the data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GF104 | GK106 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 288 | 768 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.800 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.20 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 748.8 GFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |