NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M represent two distinct generations of GPU design with a surprising overlap in overall performance. The data shows that while the older GeForce card was a desktop gaming product, its average benchmark score of 7925 places it within 0.2% of the Quadro K4100M's 7906 average. This near-tie in overall standing, however, hides a significant divergence in how each card handles specific workloads and what architectural trade-offs define them.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data clearly favors the Quadro K4100M in the single head-to-head test available. The K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149, defeating the GTX 460's 7925 by a margin of 13.4%. This is a decisive victory for the newer mobile workstation card, indicating that its raw compute capabilities are substantially higher than the older desktop part. The win count stands at 1 for the K4100M and 0 for the GTX 460, leaving no ambiguity about which card is faster in this specific comparison.

However, the overall average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The GTX 460's average score of 7925 is actually higher than the K4100M's average of 7906, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. This suggests that the GTX 460 might perform relatively better in other unlisted benchmark scenarios, or that its single OpenCL score is more representative of its general performance profile. The K4100M's average is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 6662, which is significantly lower than its own OpenCL result. This indicates that the Quadro card excels in OpenCL workloads but is much weaker in Metal-based tests, a split that the GTX 460 does not exhibit since it only has an OpenCL score. The data implies that for users targeting OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the K4100M is the clear winner, but for a more balanced or Metal-centric workload, the GTX 460's consistency might be more valuable.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, and was manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This older process results in a transistor density of 5.9M per mm², packing 1,950 million transistors into a die size of 332 mm². In contrast, the K4100M uses the GK104 chip, based on the more modern Kepler architecture, and was built on a 28 nm process, also by TSMC. The smaller process node allows for a much higher transistor density of 12.0M per mm², fitting 3,540 million transistors into a smaller die size of 294 mm². This architectural leap is the primary driver behind the K4100M's superior raw compute power.

The computing resources available to each card reflect this generational gap. The K4100M features 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This is a massive increase over the GTX 460's 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Consequently, the K4100M's theoretical performance figures are far higher: it delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 67.78 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, and 16.94 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The GTX 460, by comparison, manages 907.2 GFLOPS, 37.80 GTexel/s, and 9.450 GPixel/s. The K4100M is roughly 80% faster in raw FP32 throughput and nearly double the texture fill rate, explaining its dominant OpenCL result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a clear win for the Quadro K4100M. The K4100M scores 9149, while the GTX 460 scores 7925. This translates to a 13.4% advantage for the Quadro card. This substantial margin is consistent with its architectural advantages. With more than triple the shading units and a higher clock speed, the K4100M's raw compute output is simply in a different class. The 13.4% delta is not a minor edge; it signals a decisive performance gap in compute-heavy tasks like those found in professional 3D rendering, simulation, and data processing.

Looking at the broader context from the nearest rivals table, both cards are clustered tightly with other GPUs. The GTX 460 is 1.4% behind the Quadro P5000 and 1.6% behind the GTX 650 Ti, while the K4100M is 1.7% behind the same two cards. This shows that while the K4100M beats the GTX 460, both are in a similar performance tier compared to these other competitors. The performance delta between the two is significant, but it does not catapult the K4100M into a higher league relative to the rest of the GPU landscape. The GTX 460's score is remarkably competitive for a card from 2010, nearly matching the K4100M's average despite the latter having a much more modern architecture.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the memory configuration. The GTX 460 comes with only 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4100M offers a much more generous 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical difference for professional workloads that require large datasets to reside in VRAM. The K4100M's 4 GB capacity is a major advantage for tasks like texture-heavy 3D scenes or large compute buffers, while the GTX 460's 768 MB would be a severe limitation in such scenarios.

Other key differences include power and physical design. The GTX 460 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 160 W TDP, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested power supply. It connects via PCIe 2.0 x16 and has display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The K4100M is a mobile MXM module with a much lower 100 W TDP and no power connectors, relying on the host laptop's power delivery. It uses the MXM-B (3.0) interface and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop it is installed in. The K4100M also has a fixed base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the GTX 460's clock data is not listed for base or boost. The K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature the GTX 460 lacks, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 7925, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M's 7906. This represents a 0.2% difference in favor of the GTX 460.

Q: How does the Geekbench OpenCL score compare between the two?

A: The Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149, while the GTX 460 scores 7925. This gives the K4100M a 13.4% advantage in this specific compute benchmark.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5. The K4100M also has a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to the GTX 460's 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 3,540 million transistors, while the GeForce GTX 460 has 1,950 million transistors. The K4100M is built on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 460 uses a 40 nm process.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GeForce GTX 460 has a TDP of 160 W and is a dual-slot desktop card. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W and is an MXM module designed for laptops.

Q: Do both cards support the same API level for DirectX?

A: Yes, both the GeForce GTX 460 and the Quadro K4100M support DirectX 12 (11_0). However, the K4100M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the GTX 460 does not.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear choice based on workload and platform. For users who need maximum raw compute performance in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the superior option. Its 13.4% higher score in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, combined with its 4 GB of VRAM and higher theoretical fill rates, makes it the more capable compute card. Its lower TDP of 100 W also makes it suitable for mobile workstations, a key differentiator.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score is actually slightly higher than the K4100M's, and its single OpenCL score is more consistent. For users who require a card with consistent performance across different APIs or who are working within a desktop platform with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, the GTX 460 offers a competitive level of performance. Its 768 MB of memory is a severe limitation for modern professional workloads, but for tasks that fit within that constraint, it remains a viable option. Ultimately, the K4100M wins on pure compute power and memory capacity, while the GTX 460 offers a more balanced average profile in a desktop form factor. The choice hinges on whether raw OpenCL throughput and VRAM capacity are more important than a slightly higher overall average score.