NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7,925. The Quadro M5000M wins this benchmark by 65.4%, as the delta percentage shows a -65.4% for the GTX 460 relative to the M5000M.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory capacity?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory size difference is substantial, with the M5000M holding over ten times the frame buffer.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each chip?

A: The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 460 and 13.1M per mm² for the M5000M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s, while the GTX 460 achieves 9.450 GPixel/s. The M5000M leads by a wide margin in this metric, consistent with its higher ROP count of 64 versus 24 for the GTX 460.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the GTX 460 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro M5000M wins the single Geekbench OpenCL test. The database records zero wins for the GTX 460 and one win for the M5000M in direct comparisons.

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

A: The GTX 460 has a TDP of 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses no external power connectors, as it is an MXM module. The M5000M consumes 60 W less than the GTX 460 per the recorded TDP figures.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GeForce GTX 460 is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro M5000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also produced by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process shrink enables a significantly higher transistor density: the M5000M packs 13.1M transistors per mm² versus 5.9M for the GTX 460. The total transistor count is 5,200 million for the M5000M versus 1,950 million for the GTX 460, and the die size is 398 mm² versus 332 mm².

The shading resources differ dramatically. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. These counts translate into raw throughput: the M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 907.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 460. Texture fill rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 37.80 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture also differs. The GTX 460 comes with 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Bandwidth is 86.40 GB/s for the GTX 460 and 160.4 GB/s for the M5000M. The M5000M has a base clock of 962 MHz and a boost clock of 1051 MHz, while the GTX 460 has no recorded base or boost clock, only its memory clock.

API support differs as well. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M5000M also has a higher DirectX feature level, which can matter for certain workloads. The GTX 460 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the M5000M is an MXM-B (3.0) module, designed for mobile workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, while the GTX 460 scores 7,925. The delta percentage is -65.4%, meaning the GTX 460 trails by 65.4% relative to the M5000M. This is a decisive win for the M5000M in overall compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the GTX 460 sits near the Quadro K4100M (7,906, delta +0.2%), the Quadro P5000 (8,039, delta -1.4%), the GeForce GTX 880M (8,040, delta -1.4%), and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, delta -1.6%). These deltas are small, indicating the GTX 460's OpenCL score is tightly clustered with these GPUs. The M5000M, by contrast, is near the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, delta +0.1%), the GeForce GT 555M (6,493, delta -0.2%), the GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, delta -0.5%), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554, delta -1.1%). Notably, the M5000M's average benchmark score (6,481) is lower than its OpenCL score because it includes multiple Passmark tests, some of which score very low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 10 at 35).

The M5000M also has Vulkan and additional Passmark results not available for the GTX 460. Its Vulkan score is 24,875. The Passmark G3D score is 7,062, and the GPU compute score is 2,756. The GTX 460 has no recorded results for these tests, so no direct comparison exists. Within the M5000M's own results, the Passmark DirectX 9 score of 119 is the highest among its DirectX tests, while DirectX 11 scores 54 and DirectX 12 scores 29. The G2D score is 476.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 40 nm for the GTX 460 and 28 nm for the M5000M. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 5,200 million, and die size is 332 mm² versus 398 mm². The GTX 460 has no base or boost clock recorded, while the M5000M has a 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. Memory size is 768 MB versus 8 GB, bus width is 192-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 86.40 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.

Shading units are 336 versus 1,536, TMUs are 56 versus 96, and ROPs are 24 versus 64. Pixel rate is 9.450 GPixel/s versus 67.26 GPixel/s, texture rate is 37.80 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 907.2 GFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS. TDP is 160 W versus 100 W. The GTX 460 is dual-slot with two 6-pin connectors and a recommended 450 W PSU, while the M5000M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU.

The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 460 and MXM-B (3.0) for the M5000M. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 460, while the M5000M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 460 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD; the M5000M has no MSRP recorded. The GTX 460 was released on 2010-07-11, while the M5000M was released on 2015-08-17. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro M5000M as the stronger GPU in compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 22,920 is roughly three times the GTX 460's 7,925, and its FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS is well above 907.2 GFLOPS. The M5000M also offers far more memory (8 GB versus 768 MB) and higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s). For any workload that stresses compute, memory capacity, or fill rates, the M5000M is clearly ahead.

However, the GTX 460 holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs: 41st percentile versus 37th for the M5000M. This is driven by the M5000M's average benchmark score of 6,481, which includes its low Passmark DirectX scores. The GTX 460's average score is 7,925, which is its only recorded benchmark. The M5000M's nearest rivals include integrated and older mobile GPUs like the Intel UHD Graphics P750 and GeForce GT 555M, while the GTX 460 sits near the Quadro P5000 and GTX 880M in its OpenCL result. This suggests that in the specific OpenCL test, the GTX 460 is competitive with much newer desktop parts, whereas the M5000M's average is dragged down by other tests.

The M5000M wins the only direct head-to-head test. The GTX 460 has zero wins in the database. For users who need maximum compute and memory, the M5000M is the choice. For users who only care about the OpenCL score and its relative position among desktop GPUs, the GTX 460's percentile is higher, but it loses the direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score is 65.4% higher than the GTX 460, and its FP32 rate of 3.229 TFLOPS is over three times the GTX 460's 907.2 GFLOPS. It also wins in memory-intensive tasks: 8 GB versus 768 MB, 256-bit versus 192-bit bus, and 160.4 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The M5000M has higher pixel rate (67.26 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s) and texture rate (100.9 GTexel/s versus 37.80 GTexel/s). It also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, whereas the GTX 460 has no Vulkan and only DirectX 11_0.

The GTX 460 wins in no recorded benchmark against the M5000M. It has zero head-to-head wins. Its advantages are limited to the percentile ranking (41 versus 37), a lower TDP relative to its performance class? No, the M5000M has a lower TDP at 100 W versus 160 W. The GTX 460 does have a smaller die (332 mm² versus 398 mm²) and a lower transistor count, but these are not performance advantages. In terms of form factor, the GTX 460 is a dual-slot desktop card with DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, while the M5000M is an MXM module for portable devices. The GTX 460 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD, whereas the M5000M has none.

For use cases: the M5000M suits mobile workstations, offering high compute and large memory in a low-power (100 W) MXM package. The GTX 460 suits desktop builds from its era, with standard display outputs and a fixed price point. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the M5000M is the clear winner. If the workload requires desktop connectivity or a specific legacy driver environment, the GTX 460 may be the only option, but its performance is decisively lower.