NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop GPU design. The 880M is a high-end notebook part from the Kepler generation, while the 460 is an older Fermi-based desktop card. The benchmark data reveals a surprising outcome: despite the 880M's newer architecture and larger specifications, the GTX 460 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, though the overall average scores tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the older GTX 460. The GTX 460 scores 7925 points, while the GTX 880M manages only 5622 points. This represents a 29.1% deficit for the 880M, a substantial margin that defies expectations based on generation alone. The GTX 460's score is also higher than the 880M's average benchmark score of 8040, which is itself dragged down by the weaker OpenCL result.

However, the 880M has another data point: a Geekbench Metal score of 10458. This is significantly higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the 880M's performance is highly API-dependent. The GTX 460 has no Metal score listed, as it predates that API's widespread use. When looking at the overall averages, the two cards are nearly identical: the 880M averages 8040 across both tests, while the 460 averages 7925 from its single OpenCL result. The delta between the average scores is a mere -1.4% in favor of the 880M when comparing it to the 460's nearest rivals list.

The head-to-head delta of -29.1% is the single most striking number in the dataset. It indicates that in raw OpenCL compute, the GTX 460 is far more efficient at executing those specific workloads. The 880M's advantage in the Metal test, where it scores 10458, shows that it excels in environments optimized for newer graphics APIs. This split suggests that the 880M is not universally slower, but rather that its architecture favors different types of workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die with a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². In contrast, the GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip on the older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9M / mm². The newer process node allows the 880M to fit nearly twice as many transistors in a smaller area.

The compute configuration differs drastically. The 880M features 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The GTX 460, by contrast, has only 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This is a 4.5x difference in shader count, yet the 460 still wins the OpenCL test. The 880M also has much higher theoretical rates: 3.050 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus 907.2 GFLOPS for the 460, and a pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s. The texture rate is similarly lopsided at 127.1 GTexel/s versus 37.80 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The 880M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 has just 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The 880M's memory clock is 1250 MHz (or 5 Gbps effective), while the 460's is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The 880M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the 460 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460 wins decisively in the OpenCL compute benchmark. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain video encoding, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU computing tasks. Its score of 7925 is not only higher than the 880M's 5622, but it also places the 460 in a competitive position against much newer cards. The data shows the 460's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M at 7906 (a 0.2% delta), meaning the 460 is effectively at parity with that professional mobile GPU in this test.

The GTX 880M wins in the Metal benchmark with a score of 10458. This is its strongest showing and indicates that for applications optimized for Apple's Metal API, the 880M is substantially more capable. The 880M's average benchmark score of 8040 is also slightly higher than the 460's 7925, though the delta is marginal. For modern gaming or compute workloads that leverage Metal, the 880M is the clear winner. Its 8 GB memory capacity also gives it a massive advantage in texture-heavy scenarios or large datasets, even if the raw compute test doesn't reflect that.

The 880M's higher pixel and texture rates suggest it should excel in traditional rasterization workloads, but the OpenCL result contradicts this. The 460's win is likely due to architectural efficiencies in Fermi's compute shaders, despite its older design. The 880M's Kepler architecture was optimized for geometry throughput rather than raw compute, which explains the discrepancy.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the form factor and power delivery. The 880M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, drawing 122 W TDP. The GTX 460 is a Dual-slot desktop card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors, with a 160 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The 880M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the 460 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The 460 has a physical length of 210 mm (8.3 inches), while the 880M's dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent.

Display outputs differ significantly: the 880M is Portable Device Dependent, meaning its outputs vary by laptop implementation, while the 460 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The memory sizes are starkly different: 8 GB versus 768 MB. The 880M has a base clock of 954 MHz and boost of 993 MHz, while the 460 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 900 MHz. The 880M's shading units number 1536, while the 460 has 336. The 880M also has a higher transistor count and density, as detailed previously.

The release dates are also part of the specification gap. The 880M was released on 2014-03-11, while the 460 came out on 2010-07-11. The 880M's predecessor is the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M. The 460's predecessor is the GeForce 200 series and its successor is the GeForce 500 series. The 460 has a listed launch MSRP of 199 USD, which can be stated for historical context.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 is significantly faster in OpenCL, scoring 7925 compared to the GTX 880M's 5622, a 29.1% advantage for the 460.

Q: Does the GTX 880M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: Yes, the GTX 880M scores 10458 in the Geekbench Metal test, which is its only listed benchmark win. The GTX 460 has no Metal score recorded.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 880M has an average benchmark score of 8040, while the GTX 460 averages 7925. The 880M is ahead by a marginal amount, with a -1.4% delta from the 460's perspective.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these cards?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5. The 880M also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the 460's 192-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GTX 880M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, while the GTX 460 has a higher TDP of 160 W. The 880M is an MXM module, while the 460 is a dual-slot desktop card.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split decision. If your primary concern is OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 is the superior choice. Its 7925 OpenCL score beats the 880M by 29.1%, and it holds its own against much newer cards in its nearest rivals list, including a 0.2% delta against the Quadro K4100M. This makes it a surprisingly capable card for legacy compute tasks, despite its older Fermi architecture and smaller memory pool. Its lower average score of 7925 is only slightly behind the 880M's 8040, so you are not sacrificing much in overall average performance.

If you need a card for modern graphics APIs, particularly Metal, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M is the better pick. Its Metal score of 10458 is far higher than anything the 460 can achieve, and its 8 GB memory capacity is a massive advantage for modern game textures and large datasets. The 880M's higher pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s and texture rate of 127.1 GTexel/s also indicate superior rasterization potential, even if the OpenCL test doesn't reflect it.

For a laptop user needing a mobile solution, the 880M is the only viable option, as the 460 is a desktop card. The 880M's lower TDP of 122 W and MXM form factor make it suitable for notebooks, while the 460 requires a desktop PSU of 450 W and dual-slot space. The 880M's boost clock of 993 MHz and higher shading unit count suggest better long-term driver support and feature compatibility, particularly with Vulkan support. The GTX 460 is an end-of-life desktop part with no Vulkan support, making it less future-proof. Ultimately, if you prioritize raw OpenCL speed, pick the 460; if you need a modern, memory-rich mobile GPU with Metal support, the 880M is the data-backed choice.