NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a clear, though modest, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M. The Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 trails with 8,743 points. This translates to a 4.4% deficit for the GTX 460 v2, a meaningful gap but not a dominant one.

Context matters here. The GTX 460 v2 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4100M sits slightly lower at the 41st percentile. Despite the lower percentile ranking, the Quadro wins the head-to-head OpenCL test, which suggests the two cards are closely matched in raw compute workloads. The percentile difference of three points is negligible in real-world terms.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces this picture. The GTX 460 v2's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, which scores 8,746, a delta of 0%. The Quadro P2200 sits just 0.7% behind at 8,686. On the other side, the Quadro K4100M's nearest rival is the original NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, which scores 7,925, a 0.2% delta. This is a notable symmetry: the K4100M is essentially trading blows with the original GTX 460, while the GTX 460 v2 is matching a modern mobile RTX card in OpenCL.

The AMD competition tells a similar story. The GTX 460 v2 is 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863). These are all sub-2% deltas, meaning the entire cluster of cards around this performance level is tightly packed. The Quadro K4100M, meanwhile, is 1.7% behind both the Quadro P5000 (8,039) and the GTX 880M (8,040), and 1.8% behind the GTX 650 Ti (8,053).

The only head-to-head win belongs to the Quadro K4100M. The GTX 460 v2 records zero wins in direct comparisons. That is a simple, unambiguous result. The database shows one test, one winner, and a 4.4% margin. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro K4100M is the better choice based on recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip, built on Kepler. This is a generational leap in design philosophy.

The process node tells the story. The GTX 460 v2 is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro K4100M uses a smaller 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This smaller node allows the Kepler chip to pack significantly more transistors. The Quadro K4100M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 460 v2 contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: the Quadro achieves 12.0M transistors per mm², versus 5.9M for the GTX 460 v2.

Core configurations differ substantially. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Kepler chip has more than three times the shading units, nearly double the TMUs, and a 33% advantage in ROPs. This explains why the Quadro achieves higher theoretical rates: 67.78 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s, and 16.94 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s.

The clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 460 v2 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro K4100M has a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Quadro's higher core count compensates for its lower clock speed, resulting in a significantly higher FP32 throughput: 1.627 TFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2.

Memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s. The Quadro offers four times the capacity and a slightly higher bandwidth figure.

Power characteristics are a major differentiator. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of just 100 W and requires no external power connectors, as it is an MXM module. The Quadro delivers more compute performance at 62.5% of the power draw.

Interface and form factor also differ. The GTX 460 v2 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and is a dual-slot card with a 210 mm length. The Quadro K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0) and is an MXM module, meaning it is designed for laptops or modular systems. Display outputs reflect this: the GTX 460 v2 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

API support shows some overlap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 v2 has no listed Vulkan support. This could matter for users running modern Vulkan-based workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,149, against 8,743 for the GTX 460 v2. The delta is 4.4% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How does the GTX 460 v2 compare to its closest rival, the RTX 3050 A Mobile?

A: The GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8,746, a delta of 0%. The two are effectively tied in OpenCL performance.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a transistor density of 12.0M per mm², while the GTX 460 v2 has 5.9M per mm². This is due to the Quadro's 28 nm process versus the GTX 460 v2's 40 nm process.

Q: Which card has higher memory capacity?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB (1 GB). Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro has four times the capacity.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Does either card support Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For raw OpenCL compute, the Quadro K4100M is the winner, with a 4.4% advantage over the GTX 460 v2. It also offers substantially more memory (4 GB versus 1 GB), a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 192-bit), higher pixel and texture rates, and more than triple the shading units. The Quadro achieves all of this at a lower TDP of 100 W versus 160 W.

The GTX 460 v2 is not without merit. It matches the RTX 3050 A Mobile within 0% in OpenCL, and its average benchmark score of 8,743 places it at the 44th percentile, higher than the Quadro's 41st. For users constrained to a desktop PCIe slot, the GTX 460 v2 is the only option of the two, as the Quadro is an MXM module with no desktop interface.

However, the Quadro K4100M's nearest rival is the original GTX 460, which it edges by 0.2%. This suggests the K4100M is roughly equivalent to the first-generation GTX 460, while the v2 revision is slightly slower. The Quadro's advantage in memory capacity alone makes it the better choice for large datasets or multi-buffer workloads.

Who should pick which? Users needing a drop-in desktop card for legacy systems should choose the GTX 460 v2, given its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and dual-slot form factor. Users with an MXM-compatible chassis, or those prioritizing compute throughput, power efficiency, and memory capacity, should choose the Quadro K4100M. The benchmark data exclusively favors the Quadro in the one recorded test, and its architectural advantages are extensive.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.19 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 56 | 96 |

| ROPs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.91 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 43.62 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,046.3 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 160 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-09-23 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 1,499 USD |