NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 and Quadro K1200 represent two distinct approaches to GPU design separated by nearly three and a half years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, but the underlying specifications reveal a more complex picture of how NVIDIA repositioned its product stack between the Fermi and Maxwell eras.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K1200 edges out the GeForce GTX 460 v2 by a narrow margin. The Quadro K1200 scores 8831 points against the GTX 460 v2's 8743, a delta of -1% from the perspective of the older card. This is a remarkably tight result — a 1% difference is well within typical run-to-run variance for OpenCL workloads, meaning the two cards are effectively tied in raw compute throughput for this particular test.

Despite the near-deadlock in OpenCL, the broader benchmark context shows each card sitting in a different competitive neighborhood. The GTX 460 v2's average score of 8743 places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rival being the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 (0% delta) and the Quadro P2200 trailing at 8686 (0.7% behind). The Quadro K1200, meanwhile, has an average benchmark score of 8265 — notably lower than its OpenCL result because it also includes a Vulkan score of 7698, which drags down the average. Its percentile ranking is 43rd, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X at 8325 (-0.7%) and the GeForce GTX 980 at 8167 (1.2% behind).

The Vulkan result for the Quadro K1200 is worth examining. At 7698 points, it represents a substantial gap from the OpenCL score — roughly 13% lower. This suggests the Maxwell architecture's Vulkan implementation, while functional, does not extract the same level of performance as the more mature OpenCL path. The GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan benchmark listed, and its API support shows a null value for Vulkan, indicating the Fermi 2.0 architecture never received Vulkan drivers.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K1200 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, but the nature of that win is instructive. A 1% margin in OpenCL is essentially a statistical tie, so the practical victory condition here is based on the broader feature set rather than raw performance dominance.

For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the two cards are interchangeable within measurement error. However, the Quadro K1200 offers a distinct advantage in API coverage with Vulkan support at version 1.4, enabling access to modern graphics and compute applications that simply cannot run on the GTX 460 v2. This is a categorical win for the Quadro in terms of software ecosystem compatibility.

The GTX 460 v2 counters in the specifications that matter for certain legacy or bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its memory bus is 192-bit versus the Quadro's 128-bit, and its bandwidth of 96.19 GB/s exceeds the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s by roughly 20%. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound rather than compute bound, the older card holds an advantage despite its lower overall transistor count relative to die size.

The shading unit count favors the Quadro K1200 with 512 units versus 336, and the FP32 throughput also slightly favors the Quadro at 1,057.8 GFLOPS against 1,046.3 GFLOPS. The Quadro's pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s is substantially higher than the GTX 460 v2's 10.91 GPixel/s, indicating better fill-rate performance for rasterization-heavy tasks. The GTX 460 v2 counters with a higher texture rate of 43.62 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s, favoring the older card in texture-heavy scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. This is a large, power-hungry design with a die size of 332 mm² and 1,950 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Fermi 2.0 architecture was designed for high clock speeds and raw throughput, with a 192-bit memory interface that provided substantial bandwidth for its era.

The Quadro K1200 takes an entirely different approach with the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process. The die shrinks dramatically to 148 mm² — less than half the size of the Fermi chip — while containing 1,870 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter, more than double the GTX 460 v2's density. Maxwell's design philosophy emphasizes efficiency and compute-per-watt rather than brute force, which is reflected in the drastically lower thermal and power profile.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The GTX 460 v2 pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with a 192-bit bus, achieving 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a narrower 128-bit bus, resulting in 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro's fourfold increase in memory capacity is a clear nod to professional workloads that require larger working sets, while the GTX 460 v2's wider bus serves its gaming-oriented bandwidth demands.

The clock behavior also differs. The GTX 460 v2 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro K1200 has explicit base and boost clocks of 954 MHz and 1033 MHz respectively, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro's boost capability allows it to dynamically increase performance under load, a feature that the Fermi card's static clocking cannot match.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts across nearly every major category. The process node differs by a full generation: 40 nm for the GTX 460 v2 versus 28 nm for the Quadro K1200. Die size is more than doubled on the Fermi card — 332 mm² versus 148 mm² — yet the transistor counts are nearly identical at 1,950 million versus 1,870 million. This makes the transistor density difference particularly stark at 5.9M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Memory capacity is a decisive differentiator: 1024 MB versus 4 GB. The bus width also differs at 192-bit versus 128-bit, producing bandwidth of 96.19 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro K1200 has more shading units (512 versus 336), but the GTX 460 v2 has more TMUs (56 versus 32) and ROPs (24 versus 16).

Power requirements are dramatically different. The GTX 460 v2 demands 160 W TDP with dual 6-pin power connectors and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Quadro K1200 sips power at 45 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and runs on a 200 W PSU. This is a 3.5x reduction in power draw, reflecting the efficiency gains of the Maxwell architecture on a smaller process node.

Physical dimensions also differ significantly. The GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm (8.3 inches) long and dual-slot, while the Quadro K1200 is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long, single-slot, with a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). Display outputs diverge as well: the GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro K1200 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows both cards supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro adds Vulkan 1.4 support while the GTX 460 v2 has none. The release dates bracket the architectural transition: the GTX 460 v2 launched on 2011-09-23 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the Quadro K1200 arrived on 2015-01-27 with no listed MSRP. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 460 v2's predecessor being GeForce 200 and successor being GeForce 500, while the Quadro K1200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8831 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GTX 460 v2's 8743, a 1% difference that places them within statistical noise of each other.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 460 v2 lists a null value for Vulkan support, while the Quadro K1200 explicitly supports Vulkan version 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and does it matter?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB. The Quadro's fourfold capacity advantage is significant for professional workloads with large datasets, though the GTX 460 v2 compensates with higher bandwidth at 96.19 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has a 160 W TDP requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W PSU, while the Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP with no power connectors and a 200 W PSU requirement.

Q: Which card has better fill rate performance?

A: The Quadro K1200 achieves 16.53 GPixel/s versus the GTX 460 v2's 10.91 GPixel/s, a 51% advantage. However, the GTX 460 v2 counters with 43.62 GTexel/s texture rate versus the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of physical size?

A: The GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm long and dual-slot, while the Quadro K1200 is 160 mm long, single-slot, and 69 mm tall. The Quadro's compact form factor makes it suitable for constrained chassis, while the Fermi card requires more space and airflow.