NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743 points. This gives the Quadro 6000 a 12.6% advantage, a substantial margin in a compute-focused workload like OpenCL. The delta is not a marginal victory; it places the two cards in different performance tiers despite both being built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture lineage.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro 6000's score of 9,846 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (just 0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% behind). The only rival ahead is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, which is 1.1% faster. This clustering suggests the Quadro 6000 sits in a tightly contested performance band where a few points can shift rankings.

The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, scores 8,743 points, placing it at the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (essentially tied, 0% delta), the NVIDIA 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 is therefore in a lower performance cluster, roughly 1,100 points or 12.6% behind the Quadro 6000.

The interesting implication here is that the Quadro 6000, a professional workstation card from late 2010, outperforms a consumer gaming card from late 2011 in raw OpenCL compute. The GTX 460 v2 is not a slouch in absolute terms; its score sits comfortably above many older cards, but the Quadro 6000's additional shading units and memory bandwidth appear to pay off in this specific test. The 12.6% delta is consistent across the single recorded benchmark, and there are no other tests in the database to contradict or nuance this result.

Where Each One Wins

The database records one win for the Quadro 6000 and zero for the GTX 460 v2. That means in every measured benchmark, the Quadro 6000 comes out ahead. The win tally is 1 to 0, a clean sweep. However, the nature of the benchmark matters. Geekbench OpenCL is a compute-oriented test that stresses raw floating-point throughput, memory bandwidth, and parallel execution. The Quadro 6000's architecture, with its higher shading unit count and wider memory bus, is built for exactly this kind of workload.

For the GTX 460 v2, the lack of a win does not mean it is without merit. Its texture rate is actually higher: 43.62 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the Quadro 6000. This suggests that in texture-heavy workloads, such as certain gaming or rasterization scenarios, the GTX 460 v2 could potentially close the gap or even take the lead. The database does not include a gaming or texture-rate benchmark, so this remains an inference from the specification data. The GTX 460 v2 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 1,046.3 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro 6000, a 1.8% difference in favor of the GTX 460 v2. Yet despite this theoretical advantage, the OpenCL score still favors the Quadro 6000 by 12.6%. This implies that raw FP32 numbers alone do not dictate compute performance; memory bandwidth, driver optimization, and cache behavior also play significant roles.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory-heavy scenarios. Its 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer on a 384-bit bus delivers 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GTX 460 v2's 1,024 MB on a 192-bit bus at 96.19 GB/s. That is a 49% bandwidth advantage for the Quadro 6000. For large datasets that exceed the GTX 460 v2's memory capacity, the Quadro 6000 is the only viable option. The 6 GB capacity is particularly relevant for professional workloads like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, where fitting the entire working set in VRAM is critical.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different steps in NVIDIA's Fermi evolution. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the original Fermi architecture. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, which is part of the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The process node is identical: both are 40 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with the same transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The similarity ends there.

The GF100 die is significantly larger at 529 mm², housing 3,100 million transistors. The GF114 die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. This means the Quadro 6000 has 59% more transistors and a 59% larger die area. The transistor density is the same, so the difference is purely a matter of scale. The Quadro 6000 dedicates that extra silicon to more compute resources: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The shading unit count is 33% higher on the Quadro 6000, which explains part of its OpenCL advantage. The TMU count is identical at 56, but the ROP count is double on the Quadro 6000 (48 versus 24). This ROP difference is crucial for pixel fill rate: the Quadro 6000 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 v2, a 47% advantage.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR5, while the GTX 460 v2 uses a 192-bit bus with 1,024 MB GDDR5. The memory clock differs too: 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) on the Quadro 6000 versus 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the GTX 460 v2. Despite the GTX 460 v2's faster memory clock, the Quadro 6000's wider bus yields 143.4 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s. The GTX 460 v2's memory is faster per pin but narrower overall.

Power consumption tells a story of intended use. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 550 W power supply, with one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W, a suggested 450 W PSU, and two 6-pin connectors. The 44 W difference reflects the Quadro 6000's larger chip and more memory. Physical dimensions also differ: the Quadro 6000 is 248 mm long (9.8 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), while the GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm long (8.3 inches) with no recorded height. Both are dual-slot cards.

Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, a configuration aimed at multi-monitor professional setups. The GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, which is more typical of consumer gaming cards. The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded for either.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points, which is 12.6% higher than the GTX 460 v2's 8,743 points.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 have any performance advantage in the database?

A: No benchmark wins are recorded for the GTX 460 v2. The win tally is 1 for the Quadro 6000 and 0 for the GTX 460 v2. However, the GTX 460 v2 has a higher texture rate (43.62 GTexel/s) and slightly higher FP32 throughput (1,046.3 GFLOPS) in its specifications.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro 6000 delivers 143.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 460 v2 delivers 96.19 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. The Quadro 6000 has a 49% bandwidth advantage.

Q: What are the transistor counts for these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro 6000's GF100 chip has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 460 v2's GF114 chip has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. Both use a 40 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, while the GTX 460 v2 has 336. This is a 33% difference in favor of the Quadro 6000.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. The Quadro 6000 offers six times the capacity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 |

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

| Chip | GF100 | GF114 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi (x000) | GeForce 400 |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 1,024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 96.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 336 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 10.91 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 43.62 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 1,046.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 204 W | 160 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Release Date | 2010-12-09 | 2011-09-23 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | 199 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear compute-performance winner: the NVIDIA Quadro 6000. Its 12.6% Geekbench OpenCL lead, combined with 6 GB of memory, a 384-bit bus, and 48 ROPs, makes it the superior choice for any workload that stresses parallel computation, large datasets, or high pixel throughput. The 47th percentile ranking versus the GTX 460 v2's 44th percentile reinforces this positioning. Users working with professional applications, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, should prioritize the Quadro 6000 based on the recorded numbers.

The GTX 460 v2, however, is not without its own strengths in the specification sheet. Its higher texture rate (43.62 GTexel/s) and slightly higher FP32 throughput (1,046.3 GFLOPS) suggest it could be competitive in texture-bound or certain gaming scenarios, though no benchmark in the database confirms this. Its lower TDP of 160 W and shorter length of 210 mm make it an easier fit for smaller cases or lower-power systems. For users whose primary concern is raw compute as measured by OpenCL, the GTX 460 v2 falls short by a meaningful margin.

The release dates are interesting: the Quadro 6000 launched in December 2010, while the GTX 460 v2 arrived in September 2011. Despite being newer, the GTX 460 v2 does not surpass the older professional card in the only benchmark recorded. This suggests that NVIDIA's professional lineup carries architectural advantages, such as more shading units and wider memory, that consumer cards do not fully offset even with a newer generation. The successor lineage also differs: the Quadro 6000 leads to Quadro Kepler, while the GTX 460 v2 leads to GeForce 500.

In summary, the database indicates that the Quadro 6000 is the stronger card for compute workloads, with a 1-0 win record and a 12.6% benchmark delta. The GTX 460 v2 offers a lower power draw and higher texture fill rate, but no recorded performance win. The choice hinges on whether the user needs the Quadro 6000's memory capacity and compute throughput, or the GTX 460 v2's efficiency and texture performance. For OpenCL-centric tasks, the Quadro 6000 is the data-backed pick.