NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 represent two distinct eras of NVIDIA’s mid-range offerings. Based strictly on the data, the GTX 960 is the clear performance leader, but the GTX 460 v2 still holds relevance in specific legacy contexts. The GTX 960 wins the only shared benchmark by 116.5% and ranks slightly higher in overall percentile, while the GTX 460 v2 counters with a lower power draw relative to its age and a wider memory bus. This analysis will break down the architectural gaps, benchmark deltas, and use-case scenarios to determine which card suits which workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive victory for the GTX 960 in nearly every measurable category. Its average benchmark score of 9273 eclipses the GTX 460 v2’s 8743, a difference of 530 points, and it sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs versus the 44th for the older card. In the sole head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960 scores 18925 against 8743, a 116.5% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational leap.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and efficiency, the GTX 960 is the only rational choice from this pair. It offers DirectX 12 (12_1) support, Vulkan 1.4, and a 28 nm process node, all of which the GTX 460 v2 lacks or does worse. The GTX 960 also has a lower TDP of 120 W versus 160 W, making it easier on power supplies and thermals.

However, the GTX 460 v2 is not without a niche. Its 192-bit memory bus, despite slower memory clocks, provides a different memory subsystem profile that some legacy applications might favor. But with only one benchmark result available and a 44th percentile ranking, the data cannot substantiate any performance advantage. The verdict is simple: the GTX 960 wins on every benchmark metric, offers newer API capabilities, and does so with lower power consumption. The GTX 460 v2 is only preferable for users with specific legacy software compatibility needs that require its older Fermi 2.0 architecture.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial, reflecting a three-generation jump in design philosophy. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This results in a die size of 228 mm² packing 2,940 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm process. This older node requires a larger 332 mm² die to house only 1,950 million transistors, resulting in a much lower density of 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 960 fields 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 460 v2 has only 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This 3x difference in shading units is the primary driver of the performance gap. The GTX 960’s memory system uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 112.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, but its effective memory clock of 4 Gbps yields only 96.19 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 960’s higher memory clock and larger frame buffer give it a bandwidth advantage.

API support is another major differentiator. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with modern titles. The GTX 460 v2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 960 also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the GTX 460 v2’s PCIe 2.0 x16, doubling the potential transfer bandwidth. Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 460 v2 provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 960 has an average benchmark score of 9273, while the GTX 460 v2 scores 8743, giving the GTX 960 a 530-point lead.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support Vulkan?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists Vulkan as null for the GTX 460 v2, whereas the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, while the GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W. The GTX 960 also requires a 300 W suggested PSU versus 450 W for the GTX 460 v2.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5, double the 1024 MB found on the GTX 460 v2.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GTX 460 v2 wins?

A: In the single head-to-head benchmark available (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 460 v2 loses 8743 to 18925. The wins tally shows 1 win for the GTX 960 and 0 for the GTX 460 v2.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The GTX 960 has a density of 12.9 million transistors per mm², more than double the GTX 460 v2’s 5.9 million per mm².

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, with all values taken directly from the data:

• Chip: GM206 (GTX 960) vs GF114 (GTX 460 v2)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs Fermi 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 900 vs GeForce 400
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 2,940 million vs 1,950 million
• Die Size: 228 mm² vs 332 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.9M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1127 MHz vs none listed
• Boost Clock: 1178 MHz vs none listed
• Memory Clock: 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 1024 MB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 112.2 GB/s vs 96.19 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 vs 336
• TMUs: 64 vs 56
• ROPs: 32 vs 24
• Pixel Rate: 37.70 GPixel/s vs 10.91 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 75.39 GTexel/s vs 43.62 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.413 TFLOPS vs 1,046.3 GFLOPS
• TDP: 120 W vs 160 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 2x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs 450 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs none
• Dimensions: 241 mm (9.5 inches) vs 210 mm (8.3 inches)
• Release Date: 2015-01-21 vs 2011-09-23
• Predecessor: GeForce 700 vs GeForce 200
• Successor: GeForce 10 vs GeForce 500

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are lopsided. The GTX 960 scores 18925, while the GTX 460 v2 manages 8743. This yields a deltaPct of 116.5%, meaning the GTX 960 is more than twice as fast in this compute workload. This is consistent with the underlying hardware: the GTX 960’s 2.413 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than double the GTX 460 v2’s 1,046.3 GFLOPS. The pixel rate difference is even more stark, with the GTX 960 achieving 37.70 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s, a 3.45x advantage.

The texture rate also favors the GTX 960 at 75.39 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. While the GTX 460 v2 has a wider 192-bit memory bus, the GTX 960’s higher effective memory clock (7 Gbps vs 4 Gbps) and larger 2 GB frame buffer compensate, resulting in higher absolute bandwidth (112.2 GB/s vs 96.19 GB/s). In the wins tally, the GTX 960 holds a 1-0 advantage. The GTX 460 v2’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 with a deltaPct of 0.7, indicating it is essentially tied with that professional card in average score. The GTX 960, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which trails it by only 0.6%.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins in every performance category measured. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the 116.5% delta makes it the unequivocal choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (2.413 TFLOPS vs 1,046.3 GFLOPS) and faster pixel/texture rates mean it will handle modern game resolutions and effects far better. The 2 GB memory capacity also allows for larger textures and higher-resolution assets without swapping. For anyone running DirectX 12 or Vulkan titles, the GTX 960 is mandatory, as the GTX 460 v2 lacks Vulkan and only supports DirectX 11_0. The GTX 960’s lower TDP (120 W vs 160 W) and single 6-pin connector also make it easier to integrate into existing systems with modest power supplies.

The GTX 460 v2 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its only potential advantages are structural: the 192-bit memory bus is wider, which historically could benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive legacy applications that do not scale with raw shading power. Its smaller physical length (210 mm vs 241 mm) might fit in more compact cases. However, the data does not show any performance scenario where the GTX 460 v2 outperforms the GTX 960. Its nearest rival list includes the RTX 3050 A Mobile with a 0% deltaPct, suggesting it performs similarly to a modern entry-level mobile chip, but that comparison does not help it against the GTX 960. In summary, the GTX 960 wins on compute, memory capacity, bandwidth, API support, power efficiency, and every benchmark metric. The GTX 460 v2 is a legacy card that only makes sense for users with specific, non-performance-critical needs tied to its older architecture.