NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 460 SE and the Quadro K620 represent two very different philosophies from NVIDIA, separated by nearly four years of architecture evolution. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, overall winner in the Quadro K620, which edges out the older card in the only shared benchmark. However, the GTX 460 SE is not without its own distinct advantages, particularly in memory bandwidth and raw fill rate. The choice between these two end-of-life cards hinges entirely on whether the workload prioritizes computational throughput in modern APIs or legacy memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K620 if your primary concern is raw compute performance and modern software compatibility. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6693 is 4.5% higher than the GTX 460 SE’s 6389, making it the faster card in general-purpose compute tasks. The K620 also brings a newer feature set, including Vulkan 1.4 API support, which the GTX 460 SE lacks entirely. Furthermore, its significantly lower power draw (45 W versus 150 W) and single-slot design make it a far more practical option for dense workstations or systems with limited power delivery. This is the card for a quiet, efficient, and modern compute workload.

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE if your tasks are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth or texture fill. The GTX 460 SE has a 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, delivering 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth—a massive 278% advantage over the K620’s 28.80 GB/s. Its texture rate of 31.20 GTexel/s is also 15.6% higher than the K620’s 26.98 GTexel/s. For older games or specific professional applications that are bandwidth-bound rather than shader-bound, the GTX 460 SE could surprisingly be the better performer despite its lower overall compute score. The data suggests it is the stronger choice for legacy, fill-rate-intensive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a large 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². In contrast, the Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built on a more advanced 28 nm process. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 12.6M / mm².

This architectural shift explains the performance difference. The K620 has more shading units (384 versus 288) and higher clock speeds (base 1058 MHz, boost 1124 MHz versus no listed base/boost for the GTX 460 SE, which only specifies an 850 MHz memory clock). This gives the K620 a higher FP32 compute rating of 863.2 GFLOPS compared to 748.8 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 SE. However, the Fermi card counters with a wider memory configuration and more TMUs (48 versus 24) and ROPs (32 versus 16). The GTX 460 SE’s higher pixel rate (7.800 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s for the K620) seems contradictory, but this is a case where the K620’s higher core clock compensates for fewer ROPs; the K620 actually wins in pixel throughput. The K620 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 SE does not, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results point to a split decision based on workload type. The Quadro K620 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 6693 versus 6389. This indicates a clear advantage in general compute and shader-bound tasks. Its higher FP32 throughput and more modern architecture make it the logical choice for tasks like rendering, simulation, or any modern GPU-accelerated application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan.

The GeForce GTX 460 SE wins in theoretical memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 108.8 GB/s bandwidth is a staggering 278% higher than the K620’s 28.80 GB/s. Its 31.20 GTexel/s texture rate is 15.6% higher. This suggests the GTX 460 SE would excel in scenarios that are starved for data, such as high-resolution texture streaming, certain anti-aliasing methods, or older game engines that were optimized for the wider memory buses of that era. The data indicates that for purely bandwidth-bound operations, the older Fermi card is the superior choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is faster. It scores 6693 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.5% higher than the GTX 460 SE’s score of 6389.

Q: Does the GeForce GTX 460 SE have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, significantly. The GTX 460 SE has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory providing 108.8 GB/s, whereas the Quadro K620 has a 128-bit bus with DDR3 memory providing only 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the NVIDIA Quadro K620 supports Vulkan, with version 1.4 support. The GeForce GTX 460 SE has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W and requires no power connectors, while the GeForce GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors. The suggested PSU rating is 200 W for the K620 and 450 W for the GTX 460 SE.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K620 has a slightly lower average benchmark score of 6282 compared to the GTX 460 SE’s 6389. However, the K620 has two benchmark scores (OpenCL and Vulkan), which may skew the average.

Q: Are these cards the same physical size?

A: No. The GTX 460 SE is 210 mm long and is a dual-slot card. The Quadro K620 is 160 mm long and 69 mm high, fitting in a single slot.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 emerges victorious with a score of 6693, defeating the GeForce GTX 460 SE which scores 6389. This represents a 4.5% performance delta in favor of the K620. This is a modest but definitive win for the Maxwell-based card in a general compute workload.

While that is the only shared benchmark, a deeper look at the specification data reveals where the GTX 460 SE could claw back a win. Its memory bandwidth advantage is immense. The 108.8 GB/s figure dwarfs the K620’s 28.80 GB/s, a difference of 278%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational gap in memory subsystem capability. Similarly, the GTX 460 SE’s texture fill rate of 31.20 GTexel/s outpaces the K620’s 26.98 GTexel/s by 15.6%. These are the metrics that would matter in a legacy DirectX 11 game or a specialized application that is not optimized for the K620’s newer architecture. The K620 counters with a 15.3% higher FP32 compute rating (863.2 GFLOPS vs 748.8 GFLOPS) and a much higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 7.800 GPixel/s), showing its strength in shader-heavy and fill-rate-heavy modern workloads.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key areas where the two cards differ, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE | NVIDIA Quadro K620 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1058 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 288 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.800 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.20 GTexel/s | 26.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 748.8 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 45 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

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

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches), 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | 160 USD | Not listed |