NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GRID K2 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, with the former targeting virtualized data center workloads and the latter serving as a mainstream desktop part. Despite their different purposes, the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the GRID K2 holding a substantial advantage in raw compute throughput. This analysis compares the two based solely on the provided specifications and benchmark results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7,925 points. This translates to a 33.8% advantage for the GRID K2, a significant margin that underscores the architectural generational leap between the two.

This 33.8% delta is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive lead. The GRID K2’s score places it firmly ahead, and the magnitude of the difference aligns with its much larger shading unit count and memory bandwidth. While the GTX 460 was a capable performer in its day, the data shows it is outclassed by the newer compute-oriented part.

Contextualizing the results through their respective peer groups highlights the difference in performance tiers. The GRID K2’s average benchmark score is 8,080, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (average score 8,067, a 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (average score 8,099, a -0.2% delta). The GTX 460, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 7,925, placing it in the 41st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M (average score 7,906, a 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (average score 8,039, a -1.4% delta).

The data shows that while both cards sit near the same percentile rank, the GRID K2 is consistently positioned slightly higher. The GRID K2’s performance is comparable to the GTX 650 Ti Boost, which is a newer architecture than the GTX 460. In contrast, the GTX 460 sits in a cluster with professional mobile parts like the Quadro K4100M and a much newer desktop part like the Quadro P5000. The performance gap between the two is consistent with the 33.8% delta seen in the OpenCL test.

In the overall wins tally, the GRID K2 takes 1 win, while the GTX 460 secures 0. This is a one-sided result in the available data, with no benchmark where the GTX 460 manages to close the gap or overtake the GRID K2.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GRID K2 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GRID K2 scores 10,602 points compared to the GTX 460’s 7,925 points, resulting in a 33.8% higher score for the GRID K2.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GRID K2 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,080, while the GTX 460 has an average score of 7,925. This places the GRID K2 in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 41st percentile for the GTX 460.

Q: Are these GPUs in a similar performance tier according to their nearest rivals?

A: No. The GRID K2’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (delta 0.2%) and GeForce 945M (delta -0.2%), which are significantly faster than the GTX 460’s rivals. The GTX 460’s nearest rivals include the Quadro K4100M (delta 0.2%) and the Quadro P5000 (delta -1.4%).

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

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The GRID K2 has a pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 has a pixel rate of 9.450 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip, based on the older Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. This process node difference is significant, as the 28 nm node allows for much higher transistor density.

The transistor counts reflect this. The GRID K2 contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², yielding a density of 12.0M transistors per mm². The GTX 460 contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger die size of 332 mm², resulting in a lower density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The GRID K2 packs nearly twice the transistors into a smaller physical area.

The compute resources are drastically different. The GRID K2 features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 460 is configured with 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This represents a 4.5x increase in shading units and a 2.3x increase in TMUs for the GRID K2.

The memory subsystems also diverge. The GRID K2 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 460 uses 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The resulting memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s for the GRID K2 versus 86.40 GB/s for the GTX 460.

The floating-point performance shows a similar gap. The GRID K2 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 460 delivers 907.2 GFLOPS. The interface also differs, with the GRID K2 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the GTX 460 using the older PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GRID K2 is the superior performer in compute workloads, as evidenced by its 33.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its architectural advantages, including a newer process node, more shading units, and higher memory bandwidth, translate directly into a higher benchmark score.

The GTX 460, while a solid performer in its own era, is clearly outclassed. Its 7,925 OpenCL score is 33.8% lower than the GRID K2’s 10,602. The data shows no scenario in which the GTX 460 wins any of the available benchmark comparisons. Its nearest rivals are all slower than the GRID K2’s nearest rivals, confirming that the two cards occupy different performance strata.

Who should pick which? For compute-intensive tasks where raw OpenCL performance is paramount, the GRID K2 is the clear choice based on the data. Its higher average benchmark score and 42nd percentile ranking support this. The GTX 460 might be considered for legacy systems or specific compatibility needs, but the performance data does not favor it. Its lower transistor count, older architecture, and smaller memory bus all contribute to its lower benchmark results.

The GRID K2 also offers more modern feature support, including Vulkan 1.2.175, which the GTX 460 lacks. For any user prioritizing compute performance or API support, the GRID K2 is the data-backed recommendation. The GTX 460’s only advantage lies in its smaller physical footprint and lower power draw, but those are not performance metrics and do not appear in the benchmark results.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based exclusively on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA GRID K2 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK104 | GF104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 332 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 768 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 336 |

| TMUs | 128 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 9.450 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 37.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.289 TFLOPS | 907.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 160 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2010-07-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,199 USD | 199 USD |