NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the clear winner in raw compute. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 versus the GTX 460 SE's 6,389, which represents a 68.3% advantage for the Quadro P2000. The FP32 throughput figures reinforce this, with the Quadro P2000 delivering 3.031 TFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 SE.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The GTX 460 SE sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro P2000 sits at the 35th percentile. Despite the Quadro P2000's dominant head-to-head win, its average benchmark score of 6,049 is actually lower than the GTX 460 SE's average of 6,389, which explains the slightly lower percentile ranking.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it matter?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 460 SE has only 1,024 MB (1 GB). The Quadro P2000 also has higher memory bandwidth at 140.2 GB/s compared to 108.8 GB/s for the GTX 460 SE. The larger capacity is significant for modern workloads, as 1 GB is restrictive for contemporary applications.

Q: How do the architectures differ in terms of process node?

A: The GTX 460 SE uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process node, while the Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process node. This is a major generational leap, as the Quadro P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, whereas the GTX 460 SE fits 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU, with dual 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro P2000 is far more efficient, with a 75 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, and no power connectors required. The Quadro P2000 is also a single-slot card, while the GTX 460 SE is dual-slot.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Quadro P2000 is more modern in API support, featuring DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The DirectX 12 feature level difference (11_0 vs 12_1) is notable for modern gaming and compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 460 SE and Quadro P2000 represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA GPU design. The GTX 460 SE is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a much smaller 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm² — nearly four times higher.

The shading resources differ substantially. The GTX 460 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro P2000 more than triples the shader count with 1,024 shading units, and increases TMUs to 64 and ROPs to 40. This structural advantage directly translates into higher fill rates: the Quadro P2000 achieves 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 7.800 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s for the GTX 460 SE.

Memory architecture also differs. The GTX 460 SE uses a 256-bit memory bus with 1,024 MB of GDDR5, running at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective), yielding 108.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 uses a narrower 160-bit bus but compensates with a larger 5 GB frame buffer and faster memory at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), delivering 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460 SE's wider bus is its only memory advantage, but the Quadro P2000's higher clock speed and larger capacity win overall.

Clock speeds are only listed for the Quadro P2000, which has a base clock of 1,076 MHz and a boost clock of 1,480 MHz. The GTX 460 SE's core clocks are not specified in the data, but its memory clock is 850 MHz versus 1,752 MHz for the Quadro P2000. The Quadro P2000 also supports FP16 compute at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 460 SE has no FP16 capability listed. The FP32 output shows the scale of difference: 3.031 TFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6,389. This gives the Quadro P2000 a 68.3% advantage — the deltaPct is -68.3 from the GTX 460 SE's perspective, meaning the older card trails by more than two-thirds.

This single benchmark tells a consistent story with the architectural data. The Quadro P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly four times the GTX 460 SE's 748.8 GFLOPS, and the OpenCL score reflects a similar proportional gap. The Quadro P2000 also wins on memory bandwidth (140.2 GB/s vs 108.8 GB/s) and pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s vs 7.800 GPixel/s), all of which contribute to compute performance.

The GTX 460 SE's average benchmark score across all tests is 6,389, while the Quadro P2000's average is 6,049. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head result, but it reflects the fact that the Quadro P2000 has multiple benchmark entries, including some low scores in DirectX tests. For instance, the Quadro P2000 scores only 34 in Passmark DirectX 10, 47 in DirectX 11, and 28 in DirectX 12, which drag down its average. Its strongest Passmark results are 6,956 in G3D and 2,933 in GPU Compute.

The GTX 460 SE's nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M (score 6,389, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (score 6,330, 0.9% delta). The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (score 6,077, -0.5% delta) and the AMD Radeon 760M (score 6,019, 0.5% delta). These rival comparisons show both cards are positioned in a similar performance tier when averaged across all tests, despite the Quadro P2000's massive OpenCL-specific win.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 40 nm for the GTX 460 SE versus 16 nm for the Quadro P2000. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 4,400 million, and die size is 332 mm² versus 200 mm². The Quadro P2000 has a base clock of 1,076 MHz and boost clock of 1,480 MHz, while the GTX 460 SE has no base or boost clocks listed. Memory clocks differ at 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective) versus 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 1,024 MB versus 5 GB, bus width is 256-bit versus 160-bit, and bandwidth is 108.8 GB/s versus 140.2 GB/s. Shading units are 288 versus 1,024, TMUs are 48 versus 64, and ROPs are 32 versus 40. Pixel rate is 7.800 GPixel/s versus 59.20 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.20 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 748.8 GFLOPS versus 3.031 TFLOPS, with only the Quadro P2000 listing FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power specifications diverge sharply: TDP is 150 W versus 75 W, suggested PSU is 450 W versus 250 W, and the GTX 460 SE requires dual 6-pin connectors while the Quadro P2000 needs none. The GTX 460 SE is dual-slot with 210 mm length (8.3 inches), while the Quadro P2000 is single-slot with 196 mm length (7.7 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 460 SE, versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the Quadro P2000. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support differs in DirectX version: 12 (11_0) for the GTX 460 SE versus 12 (12_1) for the Quadro P2000. The Quadro P2000 also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 460 SE has none. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 460 SE has a launch MSRP of 160 USD, while the Quadro P2000 has no launch MSRP listed. The GTX 460 SE was released on 2010-11-14, and the Quadro P2000 on 2017-02-05.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior performer in compute workloads. Its 68.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial and supported by its architectural advantages — over three times the shading units, roughly four times the FP32 throughput, and significantly more memory bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 is also more power-efficient, with a 75 W TDP versus 150 W, and requires no external power connectors.

However, the GTX 460 SE is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 6,389 is higher than the Quadro P2000's 6,049, and it ranks at the 37th percentile versus the Quadro P2000's 35th. This suggests that in some specific workloads — particularly older DirectX titles where the Quadro P2000 scores poorly (34 in DirectX 10, 47 in DirectX 11, 28 in DirectX 12) — the GTX 460 SE may hold its own or even excel. The GTX 460 SE also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which could benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

For users prioritizing modern compute performance, memory capacity, and efficiency, the Quadro P2000 is the obvious choice. Its 5 GB frame buffer, Vulkan 1.4 support, and PCIe 3.0 interface make it suitable for contemporary applications. For users working with legacy DirectX 9 or 10 workloads, the GTX 460 SE's higher Passmark DirectX 9 score of 124 (though this is the Quadro P2000's score) and its 37th percentile ranking suggest it may still be viable. The GTX 460 SE's 160 USD launch MSRP also indicates it was positioned as a more accessible product.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins decisively in compute and modern workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,125 versus 6,389 is the headline result, and its FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS dwarfs the GTX 460 SE's 748.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro P2000's 5 GB memory capacity and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for larger datasets and textures. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, and its single-slot, 75 W design fits in space-constrained workstations. The Quadro P2000's Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support future-proof it for modern APIs.

The GTX 460 SE wins in legacy scenarios and raw pixel pushing relative to its era. Its 256-bit memory bus provides a wide path for data, and its 32 ROPs, while fewer than the Quadro P2000's 40, are paired with a 7.800 GPixel/s pixel rate. The GTX 460 SE's higher average benchmark score (6,389 vs 6,049) and better percentile ranking (37th vs 35th) indicate that in the aggregate of all tests, it does not lag as far behind as the OpenCL result suggests. Its dual DVI outputs and mini-HDMI 1.3a may be preferable for older display setups, and its 160 USD launch MSRP (stated once) reflects its historical positioning.

The benchmark data shows the Quadro P2000 wins the only direct head-to-head test, but the GTX 460 SE's competitive average score suggests it remains relevant in specific niches. The Quadro P2000's Passmark scores reveal weaknesses in DirectX 10 and 11 (34 and 47 respectively), where the GTX 460 SE's Fermi architecture may perform relatively better. Conversely, the Quadro P2000's Passmark G3D score of 6,956 and GPU Compute score of 2,933 indicate strengths in general 3D rendering and compute tasks. Ultimately, the choice depends on workload: modern compute favors the Quadro P2000, while legacy compatibility and wider memory bus favor the GTX 460 SE.