NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The GeForce GTX 460 SE and Quadro K4000M represent two distinct NVIDIA design philosophies from different eras, separated by roughly 18 months in release timing. The GTX 460 SE, a desktop Fermi part from the GeForce 400 generation, targets raw consumer performance, while the Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation Kepler part from the Quadro Kepler-M line. This comparison pits a 40 nm, 1,950-million-transistor chip against a 28 nm, 3,540-million-transistor chip, with the data showing a narrow win for the older desktop card in the single available benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is limited to a single OpenCL test, but it reveals a clear, if modest, performance hierarchy. The GeForce GTX 460 SE takes the sole victory in the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 6,389, defeating the Quadro K4000M's 5,986 by a 6.7% margin. This means that in pure compute throughput, the desktop card holds the advantage, despite its older architecture and smaller transistor count. The GTX 460 SE's win is not overwhelming, but it is consistent with its higher memory bandwidth of 108.8 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s on the Quadro, as well as its significantly higher memory clock of 3.4 Gbps effective versus 2.8 Gbps effective.

The Quadro K4000M, however, does not win any benchmark in this head-to-head dataset, with a win count of zero. Its strengths lie elsewhere in its specification sheet, not in the measured OpenCL score. The data shows the Quadro has a higher pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 460 SE's 7.800 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s. These figures suggest that in fill-rate-limited scenarios, the Quadro would likely outperform the GTX 460 SE, but such tests are not present in the provided benchmark data. Therefore, the only measured win belongs to the GeForce, while the Quadro's advantages remain theoretical based on raw specification analysis.

The percentile rankings further contextualize these results. The GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile. This three-percentile gap reflects the 6.7% score difference, placing the desktop card slightly higher in the overall performance distribution. For users prioritizing the measured OpenCL compute workload, the GTX 460 SE is the clear choice; for those considering the Quadro's other architectural attributes, the data suggests it is competitive but not superior in this specific metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC, but on a more advanced 28 nm process. This newer node allows the Quadro to house 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter—more than double that of the Fermi chip.

The core configurations differ dramatically as well. The GTX 460 SE features 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro K4000M, meanwhile, has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the Quadro has over three times the shading units and nearly double the TMUs, which explains its higher theoretical pixel and texture rates. However, the GTX 460 SE compensates with its clock speeds; while the Quadro is locked to a base and boost clock of 601 MHz, the GTX 460 SE's memory runs at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective), contributing to its higher bandwidth.

Memory configurations also diverge. The GTX 460 SE offers 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Quadro K4000M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus width. The GTX 460 SE's bandwidth advantage (108.8 GB/s vs 89.60 GB/s) comes from its faster memory clock, despite the Quadro having four times the capacity. In terms of power, the GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP and requires dual-slot cooling with dual 6-pin power connectors, whereas the Quadro K4000M is a 100 W MXM module with no external power connectors, reflecting its mobile workstation design. API support is also a differentiator, with the Quadro supporting Vulkan 1.2.175 while the GTX 460 SE lists no Vulkan support; both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is geekbench_opencl, where the GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6,389 against the Quadro K4000M's 5,986. This yields a delta of 6.7% in favor of the GTX 460 SE, marking it as the winner in this test. The score difference of 403 points is notable but not massive, suggesting that the older Fermi architecture can still hold its own against the newer Kepler part in this specific OpenCL workload. The GTX 460 SE's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 580M, scores identically at 6,389, while the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell is just 0.3% behind. This places the GTX 460 SE in a tight cluster of similar-performing GPUs.

For the Quadro K4000M, its score of 5,986 puts it within 0.1% of the Quadro K4000 and 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, showing that it is competitive within its own performance tier. The GeForce GTX 770M is 0.2% ahead, indicating that the Quadro's performance is typical for its class. The 6.7% delta between the two compared cards is the largest gap within their respective rival clusters, emphasizing that while neither card is a standout, the GTX 460 SE has a measurable edge in this test. The data does not include any other benchmark tests, so the analysis is confined to this single metric, but the results are unambiguous: the GTX 460 SE wins the only measured comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6,389 in geekbench_opencl, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986, giving the GTX 460 SE a 6.7% advantage.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 460 SE offers 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than the Quadro K4000M's 89.60 GB/s, despite both using a 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, significantly more than the GTX 460 SE's 288 shading units, though the GTX 460 SE still wins the OpenCL test.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4000M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 SE has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The GTX 460 SE uses a 40 nm process (Fermi), while the Quadro K4000M uses a 28 nm process (Kepler), allowing the latter to pack 3,540 million transistors on a smaller die.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4000M has a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTX 460 SE's 7.800 GPixel/s, indicating a potential advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the provided data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE is the superior performer in the only benchmark test available. Its 6.7% lead in geekbench_opencl, combined with its higher memory bandwidth and faster effective memory clock, makes it the better choice for compute-oriented tasks that rely on OpenCL performance. The GTX 460 SE also holds a higher percentile ranking at 37 versus the Quadro's 34, reinforcing its slight edge in overall GPU hierarchy.

However, the Quadro K4000M should not be dismissed. Its architectural advantages—960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and higher pixel/texture rates—suggest it would excel in graphics-heavy or fill-rate-limited applications, even though no such benchmarks are present in this dataset. The Quadro also offers four times the memory capacity (4 GB vs 1,024 MB) and a lower TDP of 100 W versus 150 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained mobile workstation environments. Its Vulkan support and modern Kepler architecture provide feature-level advantages that the Fermi-based GTX 460 SE cannot match.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. If the primary task is OpenCL compute, the GTX 460 SE is the pick, as the data shows it is measurably faster. If the task involves large textures, high-resolution rendering, or requires Vulkan API support, the Quadro K4000M's specification sheet offers compelling reasons to choose it, despite losing the measured benchmark. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a context-dependent choice, with the GTX 460 SE winning the only direct comparison made.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 288 | 960 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Clock | 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 7.800 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.20 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 748.8 GFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | None | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2010-11-14 | 2012-05-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 160 USD | Not specified |