NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database for these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear, if modest, result. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6,389 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5,986 points. That is a 6.7% lead for the older GeForce card, which translates into a single win for the GTX 460 SE and zero for the Quadro in the head-to-head table.

That 6.7% margin is not overwhelming, but it is consistent across the broader competitive landscape. The GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile. The GTX 460 SE’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M, which scores identically at 6,389 points, placing them in a dead heat. The next closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell, is only 0.3% behind, meaning the GTX 460 SE is effectively trading punches with a far newer workstation part in this particular workload.

The Quadro M500M’s nearest rivals tell a similar story of a card performing slightly below its direct competitor. Its closest match is the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, which scores 5,691 points, a 1.5% advantage for the Quadro. The AMD FirePro M4000 trails by 1.2%, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 trails by 1.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M trails by 1.9%. In other words, the Quadro M500M is not a dominant performer in its class; it sits near the middle of a tight cluster of mobile and workstation GPUs.

Notably, the Quadro M500M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,222, but no corresponding Vulkan result exists for the GTX 460 SE, so no direct comparison can be made on that API. The OpenCL result remains the sole head-to-head data point, and it favors the older Fermi-based card by a small but measurable margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The GeForce GTX 460 SE is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip, while the Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S die. This is a generational gap of roughly six years in release timing: the GTX 460 SE launched on November 14, 2010, and the Quadro M500M followed on April 26, 2016.

The manufacturing process tells a story of progress and trade-offs. The GTX 460 SE uses TSMC’s 40 nm node, while the Quadro M500M uses TSMC’s 28 nm process. That newer node allows the Maxwell chip to pack 1,020 million transistors into a die of just 77 mm², giving it a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Fermi chip, by contrast, uses 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro is therefore far more efficient in terms of transistor packing, which helps explain its dramatically lower power draw.

The compute resources are arranged very differently. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, which is more, but only 16 texture units and 8 ROPs. That imbalance is striking: the Quadro has 33% more shaders but only a third of the texture units and a quarter of the ROPs of the GTX 460 SE. The result is that the Quadro’s peak FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS is higher than the GTX 460 SE’s 748.8 GFLOPS, yet its texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s is barely half of the GTX 460 SE’s 31.20 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are closer, with the Quadro at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.800 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 SE.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 460 SE uses 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which yields just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 7.5-fold difference in bandwidth, a gap that will heavily influence which workloads each card can handle. The Quadro’s memory clock is listed at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 460 SE’s memory runs at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective). The effective data rate on the GeForce is nearly double, but the bus width is the real differentiator.

Power consumption is where the Quadro wins decisively. The GTX 460 SE is rated at 150 W TDP and requires a dual-slot cooler with two 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 450 W power supply. The Quadro M500M is an MXM module with a 30 W TDP, no external power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Quadro is also clocked with a base frequency of 1,029 MHz and a boost of 1,124 MHz, while the GTX 460 SE has no recorded base or boost clock in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460 SE wins in raw OpenCL performance, as the benchmark data confirms. Its 6,389 score versus 5,986 for the Quadro represents a 6.7% advantage. That edge likely stems from its massive memory bandwidth advantage: 108.8 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. For any workload that is bandwidth-bound, such as large texture fetches, framebuffer operations, or certain compute kernels, the GTX 460 SE should pull ahead. Its higher texture rate of 31.20 GTexel/s also suggests it is better suited for fill-rate-heavy tasks.

The Quadro M500M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 30 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact workstations where power and cooling are constrained. The GTX 460 SE, with its 150 W TDP and dual-slot design, is a desktop card that requires a substantial power supply. The Quadro also has a higher peak FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS, which means that for compute workloads that are shader-bound rather than memory-bound, it may actually process more floating-point operations per second. Its smaller die size and higher transistor density also point to better manufacturing efficiency.

The Quadro also has Vulkan support, listed at version 1.4 in the database, while the GTX 460 SE has no recorded Vulkan support. For modern applications that can leverage Vulkan, the Quadro has an API advantage that the older Fermi card simply cannot match. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, so those APIs do not differentiate them.

For a user deciding between the two, the choice depends on the target platform and workload. In a desktop system with adequate power and cooling, the GTX 460 SE offers better measured compute performance and far superior memory bandwidth. In a mobile workstation or a system with strict power limits, the Quadro M500M is the only practical option, and its higher shader count and newer architecture provide a solid FP32 baseline.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6,389, which is 6.7% higher than the Quadro M500M’s 5,986.

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

A: The GTX 460 SE has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory delivering 108.8 GB/s. The Quadro M500M has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory delivering 14.40 GB/s.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W, while the Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro M500M additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 SE has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, while the GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The GTX 460 SE’s GF104 chip has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro M500M’s GM108S chip has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |

| Chip | GF104 | GM108S |

| Generation | GeForce 400 | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

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

| Shading Units | 288 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.800 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.20 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 748.8 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not listed |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2010-11-14 | 2016-04-26 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 200 | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | GeForce 500 | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Launch MSRP | 160 USD | Not listed |