NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 scores 7,925. That is a delta of 308.1% in favor of the Quadro P2200. In practical terms, the P2200 delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in this workload. This is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a complete reassignment of performance class.

The GTX 460 does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its only entry in the database is that same Geekbench OpenCL result, and it trails by a wide margin. The wins tally stands at 1 for the Quadro P2200 and 0 for the GTX 460. For anyone comparing these two cards for any modern workload, the data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2200 is the faster card by a substantial margin.

Looking at broader database context, the Quadro P2200's average benchmark score is 8,686, which places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at an average of 8,743 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (0.7% behind), the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8,595 (1.1% ahead), and the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558 (1.5% ahead). The GTX 460 itself averages 7,925, putting it at the 41st percentile, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M at 7,906 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 at 8,039 (1.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040 (1.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8,053 (1.6% ahead). The gap between the two cards' average scores is about 9.6%, which is far smaller than the OpenCL delta, suggesting that the single benchmark may favor the P2200's architecture more than other tests would. Still, the recorded data shows a clear winner.

The Quadro P2200 also shows a much stronger showing in its individual benchmark suite. Its Passmark G3D score is 9,364, its Passmark G2D score is 881, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 3,921. The GTX 460 has no recorded Passmark scores in this database, so those figures cannot be directly compared. The Geekbench Vulkan score for the P2200 is 31,351, which again has no counterpart for the GTX 460. What the data does show is that the P2200 is a consistently capable performer across multiple API workloads, while the GTX 460's single recorded data point leaves it far behind.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and does so by a massive margin. In OpenCL compute, which is a general-purpose GPU workload used for tasks like physics simulation, image processing, and data-parallel algorithms, the P2200 is 308.1% ahead. This makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages OpenCL for acceleration. The card's other benchmark scores, such as 33 in Passmark DirectX 12, 70 in Passmark DirectX 11, and 167 in Passmark DirectX 9, indicate it handles legacy and modern graphics APIs alike, though the numbers are low in absolute terms, likely due to the professional driver focus on compute and stability rather than gaming optimization.

The GTX 460 has no recorded wins in any benchmark category. Its only data point is the OpenCL score of 7,925, which is 308.1% behind the P2200. For gaming, the GTX 460's architecture and driver support were designed for the DirectX 11 era, and its 24 ROPs and 56 texture units would have been competitive in 2010, but the database shows no gaming-specific benchmark results for it. The card's 768 MB of memory and 86.40 GB/s bandwidth would severely limit modern game textures and resolutions, but those figures are specification data, not benchmark results. The recorded data simply shows no scenario where the GTX 460 outperforms the P2200.

For professional workloads, the P2200's 5 GB of GDDR5X memory and 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, combined with its 3.822 TFLOPS FP32 performance, position it as a capable workstation card. The GTX 460's 907.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 86.40 GB/s bandwidth are less than a quarter of the P2200's compute throughput and less than half its bandwidth. In any compute-heavy task, the P2200 wins. In any graphics task that relies on modern APIs like Vulkan, the P2200 has a recorded score of 31,351, while the GTX 460 has no Vulkan support at all.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural eras. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The GTX 460 uses the GF104 chip on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 5.9M per mm². The process node difference alone, 16 nm versus 40 nm, explains a large part of the performance gap, as smaller transistors switch faster and consume less power.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, achieving 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 uses 768 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 86.40 GB/s. Despite the wider bus on the GTX 460, the P2200's higher memory clock and newer memory type deliver more than double the bandwidth. The P2200's memory runs at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the GTX 460's memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The P2200 also has a larger memory pool by a factor of over six, which is critical for modern workloads.

Compute resources differ sharply. The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 460 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The P2200's pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s versus 9.450 GPixel/s for the GTX 460, and its texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 37.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.822 TFLOPS for the P2200 versus 907.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 460, a factor of over four. The P2200 also supports FP16 at 59.72 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the GTX 460 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support also differs. The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. This means the P2200 can run modern Vulkan applications, while the GTX 460 cannot. The P2200's display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the GTX 460 uses two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a. The P2200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 460 is a dual-slot card requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 160 W TDP. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the P2200 versus 450 W for the GTX 460. The P2200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the GTX 460 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 versus 7,925 for the GTX 460, a 308.1% advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 460 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The recorded wins are 1 for the Quadro P2200 and 0 for the GTX 460.

Q: Can the GTX 460 run Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 460 has no Vulkan support, while the P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X, while the GTX 460 has 768 MB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The P2200 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 460 has a 160 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro P2200 averages 8,686, while the GTX 460 averages 7,925, a difference of about 9.6%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 |

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

| Chip | GP106 | GF104 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px200) | GeForce 400 |

| Process node | 16 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 1,950 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor density | 22.0M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | None recorded |

| Boost clock | 1493 MHz | None recorded |

| Memory clock | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 5 GB | 768 MB |

| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 160 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 86.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 336 |

| TMUs | 80 | 56 |

| ROPs | 40 | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 9.450 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 37.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.822 TFLOPS | 907.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | None recorded |

| TDP | 75 W | 160 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | None recorded |

| Release date | 2019-06-09 | 2010-07-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 200 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 500 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 199 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Quadro P2200 is the superior card in every measurable way. Its OpenCL score is 308.1% higher, its memory bandwidth is more than double, its FP32 throughput is over four times higher, and it supports modern APIs like Vulkan that the GTX 460 lacks entirely. The GTX 460's sole advantage is its wider memory bus (192 bit versus 160 bit), but that does not translate into higher bandwidth because the P2200's newer memory technology and higher clocks overcome the narrower bus. The GTX 460 also has a lower transistor density (5.9M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm²) and a much larger die (332 mm² versus 200 mm²) despite far fewer transistors, reflecting the older 40 nm process.

For professional workloads, the P2200 is the obvious choice. Its 5 GB of memory and 200.2 GB/s bandwidth accommodate larger datasets, and its 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes it far easier to install in a workstation. The GTX 460, with its 160 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and two 6-pin connectors, is a relic of the Fermi era. Its 768 MB memory is insufficient for modern applications, and its lack of Vulkan support eliminates it from any current cross-platform compute scenario.

For gaming, the GTX 460 was competitive in 2010, but the database records no gaming benchmarks for it. The P2200's Passmark DirectX scores, while low in absolute terms, show it can execute those APIs, and its Vulkan capability gives it access to modern game engines. The GTX 460's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a partial implementation that is unlikely to match the P2200's 12_1 feature level. The average benchmark gap of 9.6% between the two cards is far smaller than the OpenCL delta, suggesting that in some tests the GTX 460 may come closer, but the only recorded head-to-head shows a massive P2200 win.

The target user for the P2200 is someone who needs reliable, low-power compute acceleration with modern API support. The target user for the GTX 460 is a collector or someone running legacy software that specifically requires Fermi-era hardware. For any new build or upgrade, the P2200 is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. The GTX 460's launch MSRP of 199 USD reflects its 2010 positioning, but without modern driver and API support, its practical usefulness is severely limited. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro P2200 wins decisively, and the GTX 460 should be considered only for historical or compatibility purposes.