NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single common benchmark between these two cards, and it is a decisive result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 manages 8,743 points. This gives the Quadro P4000 a 314.2% lead, meaning it delivers more than four times the raw compute performance of the older card in this workload. The delta is so large that it is not a close contest by any metric; the P4000 simply overwhelms the GTX 460 v2 in this cross-application compute test.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the P4000's average benchmark score of 9,665 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9,653 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 9,645 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 9,637 (0.3% behind). Only the NVIDIA Tesla C2070, with a score of 9,716, sits ahead of the P4000, and that margin is a slim 0.5%. The P4000 is therefore positioned exactly at the edge of its performance class, trading places with professional and mobile parts within a rounding error of one another.

The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 8,743, placing it at the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals are also tightly packed: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile matches it exactly at 8,746 (0.0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8,686 (0.7% behind), while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, 1.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, 1.4% ahead) sit just above it. The GTX 460 v2 is therefore not dramatically slower than many much newer parts, but it is firmly in a lower performance tier than the P4000, with a gap of roughly 10% in average score between the two cards.

When interpreting the head-to-head result, the OpenCL score is the only direct comparison available, but it is illustrative. OpenCL is a compute-oriented workload, and the P4000's 314.2% advantage reflects not just its newer architecture but also its far higher shader count and memory bandwidth. A single benchmark cannot capture every aspect of gaming or professional rendering, but the magnitude of this delta suggests that the P4000 will dominate in any task that scales with raw throughput. The GTX 460 v2 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data, so the P4000 takes the contest with a clean 1 to 0 record.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9,665, compared to 8,743 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2, a difference of roughly 10.5%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P4000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The P4000 scores 36,212 versus 8,743 for the GTX 460 v2, which translates to a 314.2% lead for the P4000 in that specific test.

Q: Do the two cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 460 v2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the P4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 96.19 GB/s. The P4000 has over 2.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes compare?

A: The P4000 is built on a 16 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die. The GTX 460 v2 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The P4000 has a transistor density of 22.9M per mm², versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 460 v2.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The P4000 achieves 94.72 GPixel/s, while the GTX 460 v2 manages 10.91 GPixel/s. The P4000 is roughly 8.7 times faster in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip, built on the Pascal architecture, and is part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. The GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 400 generation. This generational gap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the P4000 is on a 16 nm node at TSMC, while the GTX 460 v2 is on a 40 nm node, also at TSMC. The P4000 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The GTX 460 v2 contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, yielding a far lower density of 5.9M per mm². The smaller, denser process gives the P4000 a fundamental advantage in power efficiency and raw compute capacity.

The compute resources differ massively. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The P4000 therefore has more than five times the shader count, exactly double the TMUs, and nearly triple the ROPs. Consequently, the P4000's pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 v2, and its texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS, while the GTX 460 v2 produces 1,046.3 GFLOPS (approximately 1.05 TFLOPS). The P4000 also supports FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the GTX 460 v2 does not have at all, as its FP16 field is null.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The P4000 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), yielding 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), giving it 96.19 GB/s. The P4000's memory subsystem is over twice as wide and more than twice as fast, which matters for high-resolution textures and large datasets. The P4000 also runs on PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 460 v2 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, a difference in interconnect bandwidth that can affect data transfer in professional workloads.

The feature sets reflect their intended roles. The P4000 is a professional workstation card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a single-slot design. The GTX 460 v2 is a consumer gaming card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs, in a dual-slot form factor. The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. The power profiles differ as well: the P4000 has a TDP of 105 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W power supply, while the GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and needs a 450 W power supply. The newer card delivers far more performance while consuming less power.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture. The Quadro P4000 is categorically faster than the GTX 460 v2 in the one benchmark they share, with a 314.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score is 9,665 versus 8,743, and it sits at the 47th percentile versus the GTX 460 v2's 44th. The P4000 also carries architectural advantages that go beyond raw speed: it has 8 GB of memory versus 1 GB, a 256-bit bus versus 192-bit, PCIe 3.0 versus 2.0, and Vulkan support that the GTX 460 v2 lacks entirely. For any modern workload that leverages compute, high-bandwidth memory, or current APIs, the P4000 is the only sensible choice.

The GTX 460 v2 is an end-of-life product from the GeForce 400 generation, released in September 2011, with a predecessor in the GeForce 200 series and a successor in the GeForce 500 series. Its nearest rivals in the database are a mix of mobile and professional parts that score within 1.4% of it, which shows that it still holds its own against some much newer entries, but it does not approach the P4000's performance tier. The P4000, released in February 2017, is also end-of-life, but it belongs to the Quadro Pascal generation, with a Quadro Maxwell predecessor and a Quadro Volta successor. Its nearest rivals are professional workstation cards (Radeon Pro WX 2100, Quadro K5000) and a high-end Tesla compute card (Tesla C2070), all within 0.5% of its score.

For a buyer choosing strictly between these two, the P4000 wins on every measurable axis: performance, memory capacity, bandwidth, API support, power efficiency, and output flexibility. The GTX 460 v2 has no recorded benchmark win against the P4000. Unless a specific legacy application requires the GTX 460 v2's particular display outputs (2x DVI, mini-HDMI) or its Fermi 2.0 architecture, the data does not support choosing it over the P4000.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ in the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | GeForce 400 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1202 MHz | None (not recorded) |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | None (not recorded) |

| Memory Clock | 1901 MHz, 7.6 Gbps effective | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.3 GB/s | 96.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 336 |

| TMUs | 112 | 56 |

| ROPs | 64 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 94.72 GPixel/s | 10.91 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 165.8 GTexel/s | 43.62 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 5.304 TFLOPS | 1,046.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) | None (not recorded) |

| TDP | 105 W | 160 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None (not recorded) |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | None (not recorded) |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2011-09-23 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 200 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 500 |

| Launch MSRP | 815 USD | 199 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the use cases extend beyond the single head-to-head test. In compute-heavy applications such as OpenCL workloads, the P4000's 314.2% advantage makes it the clear choice for tasks like video encoding, scientific simulations, or machine learning inference that can use its 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 power and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. Its 243.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus allow it to handle large data sets and high-resolution textures without bottlenecking. The P4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), making it suitable for modern graphics APIs in professional visualization or newer game engines. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are ideal for multi-monitor workstation setups, and its single-slot, 105 W design means it can fit into dense server or workstation chassis with modest power requirements.

The GTX 460 v2 wins in scenarios where legacy compatibility is paramount. Its Fermi 2.0 architecture and GeForce 400 generation may be required for older professional software that was written before Pascal or that has known driver quirks with newer architectures. Its 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs are useful for connecting to older monitors or projectors that lack DisplayPort inputs. The card's 160 W TDP and dual-slot design are less efficient, but its 1,024 MB of memory and 96.19 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for legacy 32-bit applications or low-resolution workloads that do not exceed 1 GB of VRAM. Its 4 Gbps effective memory clock and 192-bit bus are dated, but they match the era of the card's 2011 release, so any software written for that hardware generation will run natively.

The broader database context reinforces this split. The P4000's nearest rivals are all professional or high-end compute cards (Radeon Pro WX 2100, Quadro K5000, Tesla C2070, GTX 960M), which places it in a professional workstation performance class. The GTX 460 v2's nearest rivals include a mix of mobile GPUs and mid-range professional cards (RTX 3050 A Mobile, Quadro P2200, Radeon R9 M265X, Radeon Pro WX 5100), indicating it sits in a lower performance tier that is still comparable to some modern entry-level parts. For any task that benefits from raw throughput, modern API support, or high memory capacity, the P4000 is the only option. For tasks that require the specific display outputs or the Fermi 2.0 feature set of the GTX 460 v2, that card remains relevant, but the data shows no performance-based reason to choose it over the P4000.