NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the OpenCL benchmark recorded in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289 points. The GTX 460 v2 wins by 19.9%.

Q: How do these two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 96.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 has more memory and higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 40 nm process with a transistor density of 5.9M per mm².

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance figure?

A: The GTX 460 v2 delivers 1,046.3 GFLOPS, which is substantially higher than the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS. This reflects the GTX 460 v2's gaming-oriented design with higher clocked shaders.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires a single 6-pin connector. Both cards suggest a 450 W power supply.

Q: What is the release date and launch MSRP for each product?

A: The GTX 460 v2 was released on September 23, 2011 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD. The Quadro 5000 was released on February 22, 2011 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between these two Fermi-based cards. The GTX 460 v2 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 8,743 versus 7,289 for the Quadro 5000, a 19.9% advantage. This makes the GTX 460 v2 the better choice for compute workloads that are heavily parallel and benefit from raw shader throughput. Its higher FP32 figure of 1,046.3 GFLOPS, combined with 336 shading units and 56 texture mapping units, gives it a decisive edge in tasks that scale with shading unit count and clock speed.

The Quadro 5000, however, wins in memory-oriented scenarios. With 2.5 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB on the GTX 460 v2, and a 320-bit memory bus delivering 120.0 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s, the Quadro 5000 is better equipped for datasets that exceed 1 GB or require higher sustained memory bandwidth. Its 40 ROPs (compared to 24 on the GTX 460 v2) also suggest stronger fill-rate performance in pixel-heavy workloads, though its texture rate of 22.57 GTexel/s is roughly half that of the GTX 460 v2's 43.62 GTexel/s.

For professional use cases like large 3D scenes, multi-monitor setups, or scientific visualization, the Quadro 5000's larger frame buffer and display outputs (2x DisplayPort plus DVI) make it more practical. The GTX 460 v2, with its dual DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, targets consumer displays and gaming scenarios. Neither card supports Vulkan according to the database, but both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, but they represent different iterations. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, which is part of the Fermi 2.0 architecture, a refined version with improved efficiency and higher clock speeds. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, the original Fermi design intended for high-end compute and professional visualization.

The transistor counts differ substantially: GF114 packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, while GF100 contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process, and the transistor density is identical at 5.9M per mm². The smaller GF114 die achieves higher density per area despite fewer total transistors, which helps it reach a higher FP32 throughput of 1,046.3 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the larger GF100.

The shading unit counts are close: 336 on the GTX 460 v2 versus 352 on the Quadro 5000. However, the GTX 460 v2 has more TMUs (56 versus 44) and fewer ROPs (24 versus 40). This configuration suggests the GTX 460 v2 is optimized for texture-heavy gaming workloads, while the Quadro 5000 emphasizes pixel output and memory bandwidth for professional rendering. The GTX 460 v2's texture rate of 43.62 GTexel/s is nearly double the Quadro 5000's 22.57 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 5000's pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s slightly edges out the GTX 460 v2's 10.91 GPixel/s.

The memory clocks also reflect different design priorities: the GTX 460 v2 runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 5000 runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Despite the lower clock, the Quadro 5000's wider 320-bit bus yields higher bandwidth. Both cards use GDDR5 memory and lack dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The database lists several distinct specification differences between these two cards. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of memory, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB. The memory bus width differs: 192-bit for the GTX 460 v2 versus 320-bit for the Quadro 5000. Bandwidth figures are 96.19 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s respectively.

Shading units are 336 on the GTX 460 v2 and 352 on the Quadro 5000. TMUs count 56 versus 44, and ROPs count 24 versus 40. The FP32 performance is 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2 and 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. Pixel rates are 10.91 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 43.62 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s.

Power specifications show a TDP of 160 W for the GTX 460 v2 and 152 W for the Quadro 5000. The GTX 460 v2 requires two 6-pin power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 needs one. Physical dimensions vary: the GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm (8.3 inches) long with no recorded height, while the Quadro 5000 is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro 5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The GTX 460 v2 was released later (September 23, 2011 versus February 22, 2011), and its successor is the GeForce 500 series, while the Quadro 5000's successor is Quadro Kepler.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743, and the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The delta is 19.9% in favor of the GTX 460 v2. This is a substantial margin that places the GTX 460 v2 in a different performance class for compute tasks.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The GTX 460 v2 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,743. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (0% delta), followed by the Quadro P2200 at 8,686 (0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (1.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (1.4% ahead). The GTX 460 v2 essentially trades blows with much newer mobile and workstation parts.

The Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile with an average score of 7,289. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 (0.9% behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 (1.6% behind), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (1.7% behind). The Quadro 5000 leads its immediate rivals, but those rivals are all lower-tier parts.

The 19.9% head-to-head delta means the GTX 460 v2 is not just marginally faster; it is decisively ahead in OpenCL compute. This aligns with the FP32 figures, where the GTX 460 v2's 1,046.3 GFLOPS outpaces the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS by roughly 45%. The GTX 460 v2's higher clocked memory (4 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps) and superior texture rate further explain the benchmark gap.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most users. The GTX 460 v2 is the faster card in compute performance, winning the sole head-to-head benchmark by 19.9%. Its higher FP32 throughput, better texture rate, and lower launch MSRP (199 USD versus 2,499 USD) make it the obvious choice for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL performance, gaming, or general-purpose compute on a budget.

The Quadro 5000, however, has clear strengths that the benchmark does not capture. Its 2.5 GB frame buffer is 1.5 GB larger than the GTX 460 v2's 1 GB, which matters for professional workloads with large textures, complex CAD models, or multi-layer compositing. The 320-bit memory bus provides 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, a 24.8% improvement over the GTX 460 v2, and the 40 ROPs give it better pixel throughput for high-resolution rendering. The dual DisplayPort outputs are also more suited to professional multi-monitor workflows than the GTX 460 v2's DVI and mini-HDMI combination.

For a gamer or a compute-focused user, the GTX 460 v2 is the clear winner. It delivers a 19.9% OpenCL advantage, nearly double the texture rate, and a dramatically lower launch MSRP. For a professional who needs large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and professional display connectivity, the Quadro 5000 justifies its existence despite the compute deficit. The choice comes down to whether the workload is shader-bound or memory-bound. Shader-bound tasks favor the GTX 460 v2; memory-bound tasks favor the Quadro 5000. Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability and driver support should factor into any purchase decision.