NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two cards, and it is a decisive result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 points against 8,743 points for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2. That is a 30.7% advantage for the Quadro, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,761. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, a 0.4% deficit), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, a 1.1% deficit), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, a 0.7% lead). The Quadro essentially trades blows with these cards, landing within roughly one percent of each. The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, sits at the 44th percentile with an average score of 8,743, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, effectively tied), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, a 0.7% lead), and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, a 1.2% deficit).

The head-to-head delta of 30.7% is the headline number here. No other benchmark result exists in the database for these two cards, so the OpenCL score stands as the sole quantitative comparison. The GTX 460 v2 has only one recorded benchmark, while the Quadro has two, including a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,090, which the GTX 460 v2 cannot match as it has no Vulkan support listed. The data clearly favors the Quadro in raw compute throughput, and the margin is large enough that it cannot be dismissed as noise.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA's GPU design. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the smaller 28 nm node allows the Quadro to pack 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GTX 460 v2, despite having slightly more transistors at 1,950 million, spreads them across a 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell chip is more than twice as dense, which explains how it achieves higher performance with far lower power consumption.

The memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro K2200 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), producing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has only 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, clocked at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 96.19 GB/s. Despite the GTX 460's wider bus and higher raw bandwidth, the Quadro's superior architecture and clock speeds compensate in compute workloads. The Quadro's memory clock is also higher in effective terms (5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps), though the narrower bus limits overall throughput.

Core counts tell a similar story of architectural efficiency. The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 460 v2 has only 336 shading units but more TMUs (56) and more ROPs (24). The Quadro's shading unit count is nearly double, which directly feeds its FP32 compute rating of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460. Pixel fill rate favors the Quadro at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s, while texture fill rates are close: 44.96 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 43.62 GTexel/s for the GTX 460. The GTX 460's extra TMUs and ROPs help it stay competitive in texture-heavy tasks, but the Quadro's raw compute advantage dominates in general-purpose workloads.

Power and physical design also differ markedly. The Quadro K2200 is rated at 68 W TDP, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and needs only a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W, takes up two slots, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU. The Quadro is a far more efficient package, which aligns with its professional workstation positioning. The GTX 460 v2 is longer at 210 mm versus 202 mm, and it lacks the Quadro's DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, offering instead 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support is nearly identical on the DirectX and OpenGL front: both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The key difference is Vulkan: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed. This matters for modern workloads and explains the Quadro's additional Vulkan benchmark score. The GTX 460 v2's generation is listed as GeForce 400, and its predecessor and successor are GeForce 200 and GeForce 500 respectively, while the Quadro sits in the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation with a Quadro Fermi predecessor and Quadro Maxwell successor. Both cards are end-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Quadro K2200 leads the GTX 460 v2 by 30.7% in the only head-to-head test available, and it does so while consuming less than half the power (68 W versus 160 W), requiring no auxiliary power connectors, and fitting in a single slot. The Quadro also has four times the memory (4 GB versus 1024 MB), a newer architecture, and Vulkan support, which the GTX 460 v2 entirely lacks. For any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The GTX 460 v2 does retain some advantages in the spec sheet: a wider memory bus (192-bit versus 128-bit) and higher memory bandwidth (96.19 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), plus more TMUs and ROPs. Its texture fill rate is nearly identical to the Quadro's, which suggests it can hold its own in certain texture-bound scenarios. However, in the recorded compute benchmark, these advantages do not translate into a win. The GTX 460 v2's nearest rival, the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746, which is essentially identical to the GTX 460's 8,743, indicating that the GTX 460 v2 is firmly anchored in a lower performance tier.

The verdict from the data: the Quadro K2200 is the superior card for compute workloads, efficiency, and modern API support. The GTX 460 v2 remains a functional legacy card for older DirectX or OpenGL applications, but it cannot compete with the Quadro in any measured metric except memory bandwidth and texture fill rate, where it holds narrow leads. For a professional or compute-oriented use case, the Quadro is the only rational pick. For a purely legacy gaming or basic 2D workload, the GTX 460 v2 might suffice, but the data offers no reason to prefer it.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743. The Quadro leads by 30.7%.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,090.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 96.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 460 v2 has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, while the GTX 460 v2 has 336. The Quadro also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Q: How does the GTX 460 v2 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 460 v2's average score of 8,743 is effectively tied with the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746), 0.7% ahead of the Quadro P2200 (8,686), and 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins in every measured benchmark category. Its OpenCL score of 11,431 crushes the GTX 460 v2's 8,743 by 30.7%. It also has a Vulkan score of 10,090, which the GTX 460 v2 cannot produce at all due to missing Vulkan support. In compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the Quadro's 640 shading units and 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput give it a decisive edge. Its 4 GB memory capacity also makes it far more suitable for large datasets or high-resolution textures, where the GTX 460 v2's 1024 MB would quickly become a bottleneck.

The GTX 460 v2 does have specific spec-sheet wins, though they do not appear in the benchmark results. Its 192-bit memory bus and 96.19 GB/s bandwidth exceed the Quadro's 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s. It also has more TMUs (56 versus 40) and more ROPs (24 versus 16), and its texture fill rate of 43.62 GTexel/s is nearly identical to the Quadro's 44.96 GTexel/s. For legacy OpenGL or DirectX applications that rely heavily on texture sampling or fill-rate-bound operations, the GTX 460 v2 could theoretically keep pace. However, the database contains no benchmark to confirm this, and the recorded OpenCL result shows the Quadro dominating overall.

From a deployment perspective, the Quadro wins on efficiency and form factor. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 68 W TDP, making it easy to install in workstations with modest power supplies. The GTX 460 v2 requires a dual-slot footprint, two 6-pin connectors, and a 450 W PSU, which limits its placement options. The Quadro's DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also support modern displays, whereas the GTX 460 v2 relies on DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a.

In summary, the Quadro K2200 is the winner for compute, modern API support, memory capacity, and power efficiency. The GTX 460 v2 retains narrow theoretical advantages in memory bandwidth and texture-related hardware, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it outperforms the Quadro. For any user choosing between these two, the Quadro K2200 is the recommended option based on every measurable metric in the database.