NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 are both end-of-life graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they represent two very different eras of the company's design philosophy. The Quadro K1200 is a professional workstation card built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 460 is a consumer gaming card from the Fermi generation. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between the two, but the story is more nuanced than a simple score comparison, as the architectural and specification gaps reveal distinct purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show the Quadro K1200 taking a definitive victory. The Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 points, while the GTX 460 manages 7,925 points. This translates to an 11.4% advantage for the Quadro K1200, a significant margin that places the professional card ahead of the older consumer part in compute workloads.

The Quadro K1200's average benchmark score across all tests is 8,265, while the GTX 460's average sits at 7,925. This 340-point gap reinforces the OpenCL result. The Quadro K1200 also has a Vulkan score of 7,698, a test the GTX 460 cannot run, as it lacks Vulkan support entirely. This absence is telling, as it highlights the GTX 460's age relative to modern API expectations.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro K1200 sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 lands in the 41st percentile. While both are in the lower half of the overall performance distribution, the Quadro K1200's position is notably higher. The nearest rivals for the Quadro K1200 include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which scores 8,325 and is 0.7% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which scores 8,167 and is 1.2% behind. This places the Quadro K1200 in a competitive bracket with mobile and older desktop parts.

The GTX 460's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 7,906 and is just 0.2% behind, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M scores 8,040 and is 1.4% ahead. The GTX 460 is also 1.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P5000, which scores 8,039. These tight margins show that the GTX 460, despite its age, still performs in a recognizable band, but it is consistently outclassed by the Quadro K1200.

In terms of raw wins, the head-to-head data shows the Quadro K1200 winning the single available benchmark, with the GTX 460 failing to secure any victory. This is a clean sweep, but it is based on a single test. The gap is real, but it is not overwhelming. An 11.4% delta is meaningful, but it does not suggest a generational leap; rather, it indicates a steady improvement in compute efficiency over roughly five years of architectural evolution.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 in raw performance. The 11.4% lead in OpenCL and the higher average benchmark score of 8,265 versus 7,925 make the Quadro K1200 the better choice for compute-focused workloads. The Quadro K1200 also offers Vulkan support, which the GTX 460 entirely lacks, making it the more future-proof option for applications that leverage modern graphics APIs.

However, the choice is not purely about speed. The GTX 460 has its own merits, particularly in its texture and pixel processing capabilities. The GTX 460 has 56 texture mapping units and 24 raster output units, compared to 32 and 16 for the Quadro K1200. This gives the GTX 460 a higher texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s, and a higher fill rate potential in certain scenarios. For tasks that are heavily texture-bound, the GTX 460 could hold its own, despite its lower overall compute score.

The Quadro K1200 is the clear winner for users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, and power efficiency. Its 45 W TDP is dramatically lower than the GTX 460's 160 W, making it a far more practical option for systems with limited thermal headroom. The Quadro K1200 also requires no power connectors and a suggested 200 W PSU, while the GTX 460 demands two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W PSU. The GTX 460 is a dual-slot card, while the Quadro K1200 is single-slot, further emphasizing the Quadro's advantage in space-constrained environments.

For users with legacy software that does not utilize Vulkan or modern OpenCL optimizations, the GTX 460 might still be sufficient. Its 192-bit memory bus provides 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, which is actually higher than the Quadro K1200's 80.19 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage, combined with the higher texture rate, makes the GTX 460 a surprisingly capable card for older, fill-rate-limited workloads. But for any modern compute task, the Quadro K1200 is the superior choice. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K1200 wins on performance and efficiency, while the GTX 460 only retains niche advantages in specific legacy scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip based on the Fermi architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. This process difference is critical, as the 28 nm node allows for significantly higher transistor density. The Quadro K1200 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 460 has 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die, yielding a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter.

This density advantage explains the efficiency gap. The Quadro K1200 delivers higher performance with a 45 W TDP, while the GTX 460 consumes 160 W. The Maxwell architecture was designed for high efficiency per watt, and the data reflects this. The Fermi architecture, while powerful in its time, was known for high power consumption and heat output. The Quadro K1200's single-slot design and lack of power connectors stand in stark contrast to the GTX 460's dual-slot design and dual 6-pin connectors.

The shading unit counts also differ significantly. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, while the GTX 460 has 336. This gives the Quadro K1200 a raw compute advantage, resulting in 1,057.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 907.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 460. The Quadro K1200 also has a higher pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s compared to 9.450 GPixel/s, and a higher boost clock of 1,033 MHz versus the GTX 460's fixed memory clock of 900 MHz. The GTX 460 has no base or boost clock listed, suggesting it operates at a fixed frequency. The Quadro K1200's memory runs at 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 460's memory runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective speed.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory capacity. The Quadro K1200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 460 has just 768 MB. This is a massive difference that affects texture loading and large dataset handling. The GTX 460 has a wider 192-bit memory bus compared to the Quadro K1200's 128-bit bus, which helps the GTX 460 achieve higher bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. But the Quadro K1200's larger memory pool is far more valuable for modern workloads.

The power requirements are starkly different. The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested 200 W PSU. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W PSU. The physical dimensions also differ: the Quadro K1200 is 160 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the GTX 460 is 210 mm long. The GTX 460's height is not listed, but its dual-slot design makes it bulkier overall.

Display outputs are another differentiator. The Quadro K1200 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 460 provides two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a. This makes the Quadro K1200 better suited for multi-monitor professional setups. The API support also diverges: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K1200 adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 460 was released on July 11, 2010, with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the Quadro K1200 came later on January 27, 2015, with no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 leads in FP32 performance with 1,057.8 GFLOPS, compared to 907.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 460, and it also wins the OpenCL benchmark with 8,831 versus 7,925.

Q: Does the GTX 460 have any advantages over the Quadro K1200?

A: Yes, the GTX 460 has a higher texture rate of 37.80 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s, a higher memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, and more TMUs (56 versus 32) and ROPs (24 versus 16).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP and needs two 6-pin power connectors. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the Quadro and 450 W for the GTX.

Q: Can the GTX 460 run Vulkan applications?

A: No, the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications, while the Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more memory and what is the bus width?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU percentile rankings?

A: The Quadro K1200 ranks in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,265, while the GTX 460 ranks in the 41st percentile, with an average score of 7,925.