NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M represent two very different approaches to graphics processing, separated by their target platforms and design generations. The GTX 460 v2 is a desktop card from the GeForce 400 generation, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 880M is a mobile module from the GeForce 800M generation, built on the newer Kepler architecture. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the GTX 460 v2 wins the only shared test decisively, yet the GTX 880M counters with a different benchmark metric and a substantially different feature set. This analysis walks through the data to determine where each card holds an advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a straightforward picture for compute workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 460 v2 scores 8743, while the GTX 880M scores 5622. This represents a 55.5% advantage for the GTX 460 v2, making it the clear winner in raw compute performance as measured by this specific test. The GTX 460 v2 also holds a higher overall percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 44th percentile compared to the GTX 880M’s 42nd percentile.

However, the GTX 880M is not without its own win condition. The data includes a Geekbench Metal benchmark score of 10458 for the GTX 880M, a test that the GTX 460 v2 does not have a recorded result for. While this is not a head-to-head comparison, it indicates that the GTX 880M has a functional advantage in Metal-based workloads, likely due to its newer architecture and driver support. The GTX 460 v2 has no Metal benchmark score listed, suggesting it may not support that API as effectively.

The use-case split is therefore defined by API and platform. For OpenCL compute tasks, the GTX 460 v2 is the superior choice by a wide margin. For Metal-based applications, the GTX 880M is the only one of the two with a recorded score, making it the default option in that ecosystem. The GTX 880M also wins on memory capacity, offering 8 GB versus the GTX 460 v2’s 1 GB, which is a significant advantage for workloads that require large datasets to reside on the GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The GTX 460 v2 is built on a 40 nm process node, while the GTX 880M uses a 28 nm node, both from TSMC. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GTX 880M packs 3,540 million transistors into a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.0M per mm².

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The GTX 460 v2 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 880M has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz, with memory running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory configuration also differs significantly: the GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 880M. It has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the GTX 460 v2’s 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 127.1 GTexel/s for the GTX 880M, versus 10.91 GPixel/s and 43.62 GTexel/s for the GTX 460 v2. The FP32 throughput is 3.050 TFLOPS for the GTX 880M, dwarfing the GTX 460 v2’s 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W, requires a 450 W power supply, uses 2x 6-pin power connectors, and is a dual-slot card measuring 210 mm (8.3 inches). The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, uses no power connectors, and comes in an MXM Module form factor. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 460 v2 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 880M.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has an average benchmark score of 8743, while the GTX 880M has an average of 8040. The GTX 460 v2 also ranks higher, at the 44th percentile versus the 42nd percentile for the GTX 880M.

Q: Does the GTX 880M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GTX 880M lists Vulkan support with version 1.2.175. The GTX 460 v2 does not list any Vulkan support in the data.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is eight times the 1024 MB (1 GB) of the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 880M also has a wider 256-bit bus and higher bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 880M has a pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s, which is nearly three times the 10.91 GPixel/s of the GTX 460 v2. Its texture rate of 127.1 GTexel/s also far exceeds the GTX 460 v2’s 43.62 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The GTX 460 v2 was released on September 23, 2011, while the GTX 880M was released on March 11, 2014. The GTX 460 v2 is part of the GeForce 400 generation, and the GTX 880M is part of the GeForce 800M generation.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 have a recorded Metal benchmark score?

A: No, the data only lists a Geekbench OpenCL score of 8743 for the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 880M has both Geekbench Metal (10458) and Geekbench OpenCL (5622) scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is emphatic. The GTX 460 v2 scores 8743, while the GTX 880M scores 5622. The delta percentage is 55.5%, meaning the GTX 460 v2 outperforms the GTX 880M by more than half its own score. This is a substantial margin that suggests the GTX 460 v2’s Fermi architecture is more efficient at raw OpenCL compute tasks despite being older and having fewer shading units.

The GTX 460 v2’s nearest rivals in the benchmark database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avg score 8746, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (avg score 8686, 0.7% delta), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (avg score 8851, -1.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (avg score 8863, -1.4% delta). This places the GTX 460 v2 in a competitive range with these cards, slightly ahead of some desktop workstation GPUs and slightly behind others.

The GTX 880M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (avg score 8039, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (avg score 8053, -0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (avg score 8067, -0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 (avg score 8080, -0.5% delta). The GTX 880M sits nearly exactly at the level of these cards, with its average of 8040 being statistically indistinguishable from the Quadro P5000’s 8039. This positions the GTX 880M as a mid-range performer, while the GTX 460 v2, despite its lower percentile, achieves a higher absolute score in the OpenCL test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is generational. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, which was a refinement of the original Fermi design. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, which represented a major shift in NVIDIA’s design philosophy toward higher efficiency and more parallel cores.

The process node is a key difference: 40 nm for the GTX 460 v2 versus 28 nm for the GTX 880M. This allowed the GTX 880M to pack 3,540 million transistors into a smaller die (294 mm²) compared to the GTX 460 v2’s 1,950 million transistors on a larger die (332 mm²). The transistor density nearly doubled, from 5.9M per mm² to 12.0M per mm².

Shader architecture is fundamentally different. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, while the GTX 880M has 1536, a 4.5x increase. The GTX 880M also has more than double the TMUs (128 versus 56) and a higher ROP count (32 versus 24). These raw resource differences explain the GTX 880M’s superior pixel and texture rates, as well as its much higher FP32 throughput of 3.050 TFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 880M lists Vulkan support at version 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 v2 does not list any Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 880M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, which is a mobile standard, while the GTX 460 v2 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 880M has no display outputs of its own, being "Portable Device Dependent," while the GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict based on workload. For OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 460 v2 is the definitive winner, with a 55.5% advantage over the GTX 880M in the head-to-head test. Its average benchmark score of 8743 is also higher, and it ranks at a better percentile. Anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL should choose the GTX 460 v2, as the data shows it outperforms the newer card by a wide margin.

For Metal-based workloads, the GTX 880M is the only option with a recorded score, and its 10458 in Geekbench Metal is substantial. The GTX 880M also wins on memory, offering 8 GB versus 1 GB, which is critical for large texture sets or compute datasets that exceed the GTX 460 v2’s capacity. Its higher bandwidth (160.0 GB/s) and larger bus width (256-bit) further support memory-intensive applications.

The GTX 880M’s architecture is more modern and efficient in terms of transistor density and power draw, with a lower TDP of 122 W versus 160 W. However, the GTX 460 v2’s superior OpenCL score suggests that architectural age does not automatically mean inferior compute performance. The GTX 880M is also the only one of the two with Vulkan support, which may be a deciding factor for users running modern cross-platform applications.

In summary, the GTX 460 v2 is the compute champion, the GTX 880M is the memory and Metal champion. The choice depends entirely on the target application: OpenCL users should take the GTX 460 v2, while those needing large memory pools or Metal compatibility should take the GTX 880M. The GTX 460 v2’s higher percentile ranking (44 versus 42) and higher average score (8743 versus 8040) give it a slight edge in overall performance metrics, but the GTX 880M’s feature set and memory capacity cannot be ignored for specific use cases.