NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 460 v2 and Quadro P5000 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The GTX 460 v2 is a Fermi 2.0 part from the GeForce 400 generation, built for gaming in 2011, while the Quadro P5000 is a Pascal-based professional workstation card from 2016. Benchmark data reveals a massive performance gulf, but the comparison is more nuanced than a simple score difference when you consider the specific workloads and feature sets of each card.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P5000 in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 versus the GTX 460 v2’s 8,743. The delta is -83.3% from the P5000’s perspective, meaning the GTX 460 v2 trails by over 83%.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games and applications?

A: The Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Is the GTX 460 v2 competitive with any modern cards in its benchmark percentile?

A: The GTX 460 v2 holds a 44th percentile rank among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746 score, 0% delta), showing its OpenCL performance is nearly identical to that modern laptop part.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 96.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of physical power requirements?

A: The GTX 460 v2 uses two 6-pin power connectors and has a 160 W TDP, while the Quadro P5000 uses a single 8-pin connector with a 180 W TDP. Both recommend a 450 W power supply.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro P5000 dominates with a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 v2 manages only 10.91 GPixel/s and 43.62 GTexel/s, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 460 v2 is built on the GF114 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Quadro P5000, by contrast, uses the GP104 chip based on the Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a much more advanced 16 nm process. This allows 7,200 million transistors in a slightly smaller 314 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.9M per mm² — nearly four times higher.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro P5000 scales this up to 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This 7.6x increase in shading units directly translates to the massive FP32 performance gap: 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2 versus 8.873 TFLOPS for the Quadro P5000. The P5000 also has a tiny FP16 capability at 138.6 GFLOPS, with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 460 v2 has no listed FP16 performance.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 460 v2 uses 1 GB of GDDR5 at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the Quadro P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). The P5000’s 256-bit bus versus the 192-bit bus on the GTX 460 v2 gives it a 3x bandwidth advantage at 288.5 GB/s compared to 96.19 GB/s. This is critical for professional workloads with large datasets.

The Quadro P5000 also features more modern display outputs, including 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x DVI, whereas the GTX 460 v2 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. Both cards are dual-slot, but the P5000 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 210 mm (8.3 inches) for the GTX 460 v2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a lopsided story. The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509, while the GTX 460 v2 scores 8,743. That is a -83.3% delta from the P5000’s perspective, meaning the GTX 460 v2 retains only about 16.7% of the P5000’s performance in this compute test. This is a generational leap that goes far beyond clock speed differences — the P5000’s base clock of 1607 MHz and boost of 1733 MHz are far higher than the GTX 460 v2’s unspecified base and boost clocks, but the real driver is the 2,560 shading units versus 336.

For context, the GTX 460 v2’s average benchmark score of 8,743 places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746 with a 0% delta — essentially identical performance. The Quadro P5000’s average benchmark score of 8,039 is lower than its OpenCL score alone because it includes results from 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,330), Geekbench Vulkan (6,342), and several Passmark tests (DirectX 9: 170, DirectX 10: 77, DirectX 11: 102, DirectX 12: 44, G2D: 674, G3D: 12,634, GPU Compute: 6,508). The P5000’s 41st percentile ranking is dragged down by these varied workloads, but its OpenCL score clearly shows compute superiority.

The wins are entirely one-sided: the Quadro P5000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, giving it 1 win versus 0 for the GTX 460 v2. No benchmark in the data set favors the older card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node jumps from 40 nm to 16 nm, and transistor count more than triples from 1,950 million to 7,200 million. Die size actually shrinks from 332 mm² to 314 mm², while transistor density quadruples from 5.9M / mm² to 22.9M / mm².

Clock speeds are only listed for the Quadro P5000 (base 1607 MHz, boost 1733 MHz), while the GTX 460 v2 has no base or boost clock data. Memory clocks differ: the GTX 460 v2 runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the P5000 runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is a 16x difference: 1,024 MB versus 16 GB. Memory type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR5X, bus width from 192-bit to 256-bit, and bandwidth from 96.19 GB/s to 288.5 GB/s.

Compute resources scale up dramatically: shading units go from 336 to 2,560, TMUs from 56 to 160, and ROPs from 24 to 64. Pixel rate jumps from 10.91 GPixel/s to 110.9 GPixel/s (10x), and texture rate from 43.62 GTexel/s to 277.3 GTexel/s (6.4x). FP32 performance increases from 1,046.3 GFLOPS to 8.873 TFLOPS (8.5x).

Power connectors change from 2x 6-pin to 1x 8-pin, while TDP rises slightly from 160 W to 180 W. The bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs shift from 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a to 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions grow from 210 mm to 267 mm in length, and the P5000 has a listed height of 111 mm.

API support differs: DirectX improves from 12 (11_0) to 12 (12_1), and Vulkan goes from none to 1.4. OpenGL remains at 4.6 for both. Release dates are September 2011 for the GTX 460 v2 and September 2016 for the Quadro P5000.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The Quadro P5000 is the superior card in every measured category: compute performance, memory capacity and bandwidth, pixel and texture throughput, and API support. Its 52,509 OpenCL score is six times higher than the GTX 460 v2’s 8,743, and its 110.9 GPixel/s pixel rate is an order of magnitude greater. For anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, large datasets, or modern DirectX 12 / Vulkan applications, the P5000 is the only viable choice from this comparison.

The GTX 460 v2, however, is not without merit in its own context. Its 44th percentile ranking shows it performs on par with a modern laptop GPU like the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746 score, 0% delta), which is remarkable for a 2011 card. Its lower TDP of 160 W and dual 6-pin connectors make it easier to power in older systems, and its shorter 210 mm length fits in smaller cases. For legacy DirectX 11 gaming or basic 2D workloads, the GTX 460 v2 remains functional, but it lacks the memory capacity and bandwidth for serious professional work.

The verdict is straightforward. Choose the Quadro P5000 if you need professional-grade compute performance, large frame buffer capacity for rendering or simulation, or modern API support. Choose the GTX 460 v2 only if you are constrained by budget and require a compact, lower-power card for legacy applications where the P5000’s advantages are irrelevant. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the GTX 460 v2 wins on raw performance; its only advantages are physical size and power connector compatibility with older power supplies.