NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a clear story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7,925 points against the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7,289 points. That is an 8.7% delta in favor of the GTX 460 — a decisive margin, not a statistical tie. The GTX 460 wins the sole benchmark and takes the overall win count 1 to 0.

Contextualizing this result against the nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The GTX 460 sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.2% ahead of the Quadro K4100M (7,906), 1.4% behind the Quadro P5000 (8,039), and 1.6% behind the GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). The Quadro 5000, by contrast, sits in a slightly lower band: it is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222), 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203), and 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171). The 8.7% gap between the two cards is larger than any of the gaps to their respective nearest rivals. The GTX 460's percentile rank of 41 versus the Quadro 5000's 40 also reflects this small but consistent edge — one percentage point in global standing.

The delta becomes more interesting when you consider the hardware underneath. The GTX 460 achieves its higher score with fewer transistors (1,950 million versus 3,100 million), a smaller die (332 mm² versus 529 mm²), and a narrower memory bus (192-bit versus 320-bit). Yet it still outperforms the Quadro 5000 in raw compute. That suggests the GTX 460's higher memory clock (3.6 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps effective) and greater texture rate (37.80 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s) are doing meaningful work. The FP32 throughput also favors the GTX 460: 907.2 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS, a 25.6% advantage in theoretical compute that the benchmark partially confirms.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460 wins the only benchmark in the dataset, so on raw compute it is the clear victor. Its 8.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by structural advantages: more texture mapping units (56 versus 44), a higher texture fill rate (37.80 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (907.2 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS). For workloads that lean on shader compute or texture-heavy operations, the data points to the GTX 460 as the stronger option.

The Quadro 5000, despite losing the compute benchmark, has its own domain of strength. It offers 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 460's 768 MB — a 3.3x capacity advantage. The memory bus is also wider at 320-bit versus 192-bit, yielding 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 86.40 GB/s. That is a 38.9% bandwidth advantage, which matters for large datasets that exceed the GTX 460's frame buffer. The Quadro 5000 also has more ROPs (40 versus 24) and a higher pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s), so it may handle fill-rate-bound tasks more gracefully. Its TDP is slightly lower at 152 W versus 160 W, and it requires only one 6-pin power connector versus two on the GTX 460, making it easier to integrate into power-constrained systems.

The benchmark data does not include gaming, professional application, or VRAM stress tests, so the Quadro 5000's advantages are inferred from specification differences rather than measured outcomes. The GTX 460 wins where compute is the bottleneck; the Quadro 5000 likely wins where memory capacity or pixel throughput dominates.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 40 nm process node. The similarity ends there. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip, a cut-down Fermi design with 1,950 million transistors packed into a 332 mm² die. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, the full-fat Fermi implementation, with 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter — a consequence of the same process node — but the die size difference is stark: the Quadro 5000's die is 59.3% larger.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units (4.8% more), but only 44 TMUs (21.4% fewer) and 40 ROPs (66.7% more). This is an unusual split — the Quadro has more compute cores and more pixel output capability, but fewer texture units. The GTX 460's texture rate (37.80 GTexel/s) is 67.5% higher than the Quadro's (22.57 GTexel/s), while the Quadro's pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s) is 19.5% higher than the GTX 460's (9.450 GPixel/s). Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 460 runs GDDR5 at 3.6 Gbps effective, the Quadro at 3 Gbps effective, but the Quadro's wider 320-bit bus more than compensates, delivering 120.0 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s.

Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores — these predate ray tracing and AI acceleration. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 460 is 210 mm long and dual-slot; the Quadro 5000 is longer at 248 mm, also dual-slot, and has a specified height of 111 mm. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the GTX 460 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro 5000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro's power draw is lower (152 W versus 160 W) and it uses a single 6-pin connector versus the GTX 460's dual 6-pin, even though the GTX 460 is the smaller chip.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7,925 points versus the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7,289 points, an 8.7% lead. The GTX 460 wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the data.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Quadro 5000 has a 320-bit bus with 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 120.0 GB/s. The GTX 460 has a 192-bit bus with 768 MB, delivering 86.40 GB/s — a 38.9% bandwidth advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Are these cards from the same architecture generation?

A: Yes, both use the Fermi architecture on TSMC's 40 nm process. However, the GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip (1,950 million transistors, 332 mm²) while the Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip (3,100 million transistors, 529 mm²).

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The GTX 460 has 907.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS, a 25.6% advantage. This aligns with its higher Geekbench OpenCL score.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro 5000 has a 152 W TDP and requires only one 6-pin connector. Both have a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Do either support Vulkan?

A: No. Both cards list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, but no Vulkan version is provided in the data.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case: the GTX 460 is the better compute performer, winning the sole benchmark by 8.7% and holding a 41st percentile rank versus the Quadro 5000's 40th. Its higher FP32 throughput (907.2 GFLOPS), faster texture rate (37.80 GTexel/s), and higher memory clock (3.6 Gbps effective) give it a measurable edge in shader-bound and texture-heavy workloads. The GTX 460 also launched at 199 USD, a fraction of the Quadro 5000's 2,499 USD launch MSRP — though both are now end-of-life products.

The Quadro 5000 is not without merit, but its advantages are less about compute and more about capacity and output. The 2.5 GB frame buffer versus 768 MB is a 3.3x difference, and the 120.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 86.40 GB/s is a 38.9% difference. For tasks that need to hold large textures or render to high-resolution buffers, the Quadro 5000's wider bus and larger memory pool could be decisive. Its higher ROP count (40 versus 24) and pixel rate (11.29 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s) also suggest better fill-rate headroom. Additionally, the Quadro 5000 draws 8 W less power and needs only one 6-pin connector, making it a simpler installation.

For a user prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL workloads, the GTX 460 is the data-backed choice. Its 8.7% benchmark lead and superior texture and FP32 specs make it the stronger all-rounder. For a user who needs more memory and bandwidth for large datasets or multi-display output (2x DisplayPort versus 1x mini-HDMI), the Quadro 5000's specifications offer a compelling alternative, even if the benchmark does not capture those scenarios. The GTX 460 wins on measured performance; the Quadro 5000 wins on capacity and connectivity. Choose accordingly.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

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

| Chip | GF104 | GF100 |

| Generation | GeForce 400 | Quadro Fermi (x000) |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Memory Clock | 3.6 Gbps effective | 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 768 MB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 352 |

| TMUs | 56 | 44 |

| ROPs | 24 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.450 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.80 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 907.2 GFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 160 W | 152 W |

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

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

| Length | 210 mm | 248 mm |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2010-07-11 | 2011-02-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 2,499 USD |

| Predecessor | GeForce 200 | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 500 | Quadro Kepler |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 7,925 | 7,289 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 41 | 40 |