NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro M5000M and GeForce GTX 460 SE target completely different eras and use cases, yet both sit at the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The M5000M, a Maxwell 2.0 professional mobile part from 2015, utterly dominates the aging Fermi-based GTX 460 SE from 2010 in every measurable way. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, but the architectural gulf between these two makes the outcome a foregone conclusion.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins the only shared benchmark outright, and it wins by a margin that borders on the absurd. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M scores 22,920 against the GTX 460 SE’s 6,389 — a 258.7% advantage. This is not a close contest; it is a generational obliteration. The M5000M’s win count stands at 1, while the GTX 460 SE has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

For compute workloads, the M5000M is the only viable option. Its FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS dwarfs the GTX 460 SE’s 748.8 GFLOPS — a 4.3x raw compute advantage. The M5000M also delivers 100.9 GTexel/s of texture fill rate versus 31.20 GTexel/s for the older card, and 67.26 GPixel/s pixel throughput against 7.800 GPixel/s. Every throughput metric points the same direction.

The GTX 460 SE does have one thing the M5000M lacks: a launch MSRP of 160 USD. However, on pure performance data, the GTX 460 SE has no territory where it wins. The Fermi card’s only benchmark score — 6,389 in Geekbench OpenCL — is barely a quarter of the M5000M’s score. If you need OpenCL compute, the M5000M is the only choice. If you need legacy DirectX 9 or 10 support, the M5000M’s Passmark scores of 119 and 35 respectively are still far ahead of anything the GTX 460 SE can offer, though the older card’s DirectX 12 (11_0) API support does match the newer card’s feature level in name only.

Architecture Differences

The M5000M is built on the GM204 chip using TSMC’s 28 nm process, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. The GTX 460 SE uses the GF104 chip on TSMC’s older 40 nm node, with just 1,950 million transistors across a 332 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 13.1M per mm² for the M5000M versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 460 SE. That’s a 2.2x density advantage, which explains how the M5000M fits nearly three times as many transistors into only 20% more silicon area.

Memory capacity is another chasm. The M5000M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE offers just 1024 MB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 108.8 GB/s — a 47% bandwidth deficit. The M5000M’s memory clock runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 460 SE’s 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective). For modern workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM, the GTX 460 SE is simply unusable, while the M5000M has headroom for large datasets.

The compute core counts are equally lopsided. The M5000M features 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That means the M5000M has 5.3x the shading units, 2x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs. The clock speeds also favor the newer card: the M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost, while the GTX 460 SE has no listed base or boost clocks — only a memory clock. The M5000M’s boost behavior gives it a sustained performance advantage that the older Fermi card cannot match.

Power and physical design differ fundamentally. The M5000M is a 100 W MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for portable workstations. The GTX 460 SE is a 150 W dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, measuring 210 mm (8.3 inches) in length. The M5000M’s display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the GTX 460 SE offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support also diverges: the M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 SE maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan support at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The M5000M scores 22,920 versus the GTX 460 SE’s 6,389. The delta is 258.7%, meaning the M5000M delivers more than 3.5 times the OpenCL performance. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete generational leap. The M5000M’s nearest rivals in this test would be the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (avg score 6,476, delta 0.1%) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (avg score 6,493, delta -0.2%) — but those rivals are on par with the GTX 460 SE, not the M5000M.

Looking at the M5000M’s broader benchmark suite, it shows balanced performance across different APIs. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,062, with a GPU compute score of 2,756. The DirectX 9 score of 119 is notably higher than the DirectX 11 score of 54 and DirectX 10 score of 35, suggesting the Maxwell architecture handles legacy APIs efficiently. The DirectX 12 score of 29 is the lowest, which is typical for cards from this era. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,875 is actually higher than the OpenCL score, indicating strong modern API performance. The GTX 460 SE has no Vulkan support at all, so it cannot run that benchmark.

The M5000M’s average benchmark score of 6,481 places it in the same neighborhood as its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, 0.1% delta), NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6,493, -0.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, -0.5%). Interestingly, the GTX 460 SE’s average score of 6,389 is nearly identical, putting it just 0.5% below the GTX 670M and 1.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics P750. Both cards sit at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, but that’s where the similarity ends — the M5000M achieves that percentile with a much higher peak performance, while the GTX 460 SE is limited by its single benchmark score.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M5000M is the superior GPU in every measurable way. Its OpenCL score is 258.7% higher, its memory bandwidth is 47% greater, its FP32 throughput is 4.3x higher, and it has 5.3x more shading units. The M5000M also offers 8 GB of VRAM versus the GTX 460 SE’s 1 GB, making it viable for modern workloads that the Fermi card cannot even attempt.

Who should pick the M5000M? Anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, professional graphics applications, or any task that benefits from 8 GB of VRAM and Maxwell 2.0’s feature set. Its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suitable for mobile workstations, and its Vulkan 1.4 support future-proofs it for modern applications. The data shows it sits in the same average performance bracket as mid-range mobile GPUs like the GTX 670M and GT 555M, but its peak performance in compute tasks is far beyond those rivals.

Who should pick the GTX 460 SE? The honest answer from the data is: no one with access to the M5000M. The GTX 460 SE’s only advantage is its 160 USD launch MSRP, but that price is from 2010 and does not reflect current availability. Its 150 W power draw is higher than the M5000M’s 100 W, it lacks Vulkan support, and its 1 GB VRAM is insufficient for modern applications. The GTX 460 SE’s nearest rival, the GTX 580M, has an identical average score of 6,389, and the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell is only 0.3% behind — suggesting the GTX 460 SE is firmly in the low-end performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 258.7% higher than the GTX 460 SE’s 6,389.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two GPUs?

A: The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 108.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 460 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The M5000M also supports Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 460 SE does not.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The M5000M uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die at 28 nm, while the GTX 460 SE uses 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die at 40 nm.

Q: How do these cards compare in average benchmark score?

A: The M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6,481, while the GTX 460 SE has an average score of 6,389. Both sit at the 37th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The M5000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor, while the GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP and is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.