NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10043, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2's average of 8743. The K5100M sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 v2 sits at the 44th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K5100M in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Quadro K5100M scores 11771, which is 34.6% ahead of the GTX 460 v2's 8743. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and the K5100M wins it outright.

Q: What are the process node differences between these two cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 460 v2 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the K5100M to pack 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, whereas the GTX 460 v2 has 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5100M also runs its memory at 3.6 Gbps effective, versus the GTX 460 v2's 4 Gbps effective, but the wider bus more than compensates.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors. The GTX 460 v2 has a 160 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K5100M is based on the GK104 chip under the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip under the Fermi 2.0 architecture. This is a fundamental generational split: Kepler was designed for higher efficiency and compute throughput, while Fermi 2.0 was an evolution of NVIDIA's earlier Fermi design.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The K5100M is fabbed on a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the GTX 460 v2 uses a 40 nm node. This allows the K5100M to fit 3,540 million transistors into a smaller die of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, has 1,950 million transistors spread over a larger 332 mm² die, giving a density of only 5.9 million per mm². The architectural and process advantages mean the K5100M has a substantially different transistor budget to work with.

The compute resources are dramatically different. The K5100M has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This more than quadruples the shading unit count and more than doubles the TMU count. The pixel rate for the K5100M is 24.67 GPixel/s, while the GTX 460 v2 manages 10.91 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s.

The memory architecture also differs. The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB on a 192-bit bus. The K5100M's memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 460 v2's is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Despite the lower effective clock, the K5100M's wider bus gives it 115.2 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s.

Feature support diverges in one notable respect: the K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K5100M is also a mobile MXM module, while the GTX 460 v2 is a desktop dual-slot card with a 210 mm length and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the geekbench_opencl test. The Quadro K5100M scores 11771, and the GTX 460 v2 scores 8743. The delta is 34.6% in favor of the K5100M. This is a decisive margin, indicating that the K5100M has substantially higher compute throughput in OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores reinforces this. The K5100M's average is 10043, which places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M. The GTX 460 v2's average of 8743 is essentially level with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0% delta) and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200. The K5100M also has a geekbench_metal score of 8315, which the GTX 460 v2 has no recorded equivalent for.

The 34.6% lead in OpenCL is consistent with the architectural advantages. The K5100M has more than four times the shading units, more than double the TMUs, and a wider memory bus. The GTX 460 v2's higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps versus 3.6 Gbps) does not compensate for the narrower 192-bit bus.

The percentile standings also tell a story. The K5100M is in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 v2 is in the 44th. This is a modest gap in overall ranking, but the head-to-head data shows a much larger performance delta in raw compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The chip and architecture are different: GK104 Kepler versus GF114 Fermi 2.0. The process node is 28 nm versus 40 nm. Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 1,950 million. Die size is 294 mm² versus 332 mm², and transistor density is 12.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

The clock speeds differ only in memory: the K5100M's base and boost are both 771 MHz, while the GTX 460 v2 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the K5100M, versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 460 v2.

Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 1024 MB. Bus width is 256-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is 115.2 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s.

Compute resources: shading units are 1536 versus 336, TMUs are 128 versus 56, ROPs are 32 versus 24. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor: TDP is 100 W versus 160 W. Slot width is MXM Module versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 2x 6-pin. The GTX 460 v2 has a suggested PSU of 450 W, which the K5100M does not require. Bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. Length is 210 mm for the GTX 460 v2; the K5100M has no listed dimensions.

Release dates are 2013-07-22 for the K5100M and 2011-09-23 for the GTX 460 v2. The K5100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 460 v2's predecessor is GeForce 200 and successor is GeForce 500. The GTX 460 v2 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the K5100M has none listed.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Quadro K5100M in raw compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 34.6%, has a higher average score (10043 versus 8743), and sits higher in the percentile ranking (48th versus 44th). The K5100M also has substantially more memory, a wider bus, and a more modern architecture on a smaller process node.

The GTX 460 v2's only advantages are its higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps versus 3.6 Gbps), a slightly shorter length (210 mm, though this is moot for an MXM card), and the availability of a launch MSRP. None of these translate into a benchmark win.

For anyone selecting between these two based on the recorded data, the Quadro K5100M is the stronger performer in OpenCL compute. Its 34.6% lead in the head-to-head test is decisive. The GTX 460 v2, while a capable card in its own era, does not match the K5100M's throughput or memory capacity.

The K5100M is an end-of-life mobile workstation card, while the GTX 460 v2 is an end-of-life desktop card. Both are outdated by current standards, but within this comparison, the K5100M is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M wins in every recorded benchmark category. It has the geekbench_opencl win (11771 versus 8743), the higher average score, and the higher percentile. It also has a geekbench_metal score of 8315, which the GTX 460 v2 has no equivalent for. The K5100M's advantages include 8 GB of memory versus 1 GB, 115.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.19 GB/s, and more than four times the shading units.

The GTX 460 v2 wins in no recorded benchmarks. Its only numerical advantages are a higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps versus 3.6 Gbps) and a lower TDP per the specification sheet, though the TDP difference actually favors the K5100M at 100 W versus 160 W. The GTX 460 v2 does have a smaller die area in terms of physical card length (210 mm), but the K5100M is an MXM module with no length specified.

In practical terms, the K5100M is better suited for tasks that demand high compute throughput, large memory allocations, and modern API support like Vulkan. The GTX 460 v2, with its older Fermi architecture and limited 1 GB memory, would struggle with modern workloads that require more than a gigabyte of VRAM. The data shows no scenario where the GTX 460 v2 outperforms the K5100M.