NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both Fermi-architecture parts from the 40 nm TSMC node, sharing the same GF106 chip and transistor count. The benchmark data, however, shows them landing in different performance tiers. In the sole available head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 460M scores 4282 against the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 9.9% advantage for the mobile part. This single-data-point comparison sets the stage for a deeper look at where each card's strengths lie, though the overall percentile rankings tell a similar story: the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 is just below at the 23rd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The GeForce GTX 460M delivers a score of 4282, while the Quadro 2000 manages 3898. The delta of 9.9% in favor of the GTX 460M is substantial enough to be considered a clear generational or class-based gap, even though both cards share the same underlying GF106 chip. This is not a case of a marginal victory; nearly ten percent is a meaningful margin in synthetic compute workloads.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the picture sharpens further. The GTX 460M's 4282 score puts it 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). It also holds a 1% lead over the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241). Interestingly, the GTX 460M is only 1.2% behind the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), a modern card that sits far above it in the product stack—evidence of the 460M's relatively strong compute showing for its era. The Quadro 2000's 3898 score, by contrast, places it 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), 0.5% behind the Quadro K2000D (3919), and 0.8% behind the Quadro 2000D (3930). It also trails the GeForce GT 745M (3953) by 1.4%. The GTX 460M wins the head-to-head count 1-0, but the broader rival context shows both cards clustered in the lower-performance strata of the database.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 460M wins the only test the two share, so any advantage it has is direct and measurable. In Geekbench OpenCL—a proxy for general-purpose compute and memory throughput—the 460M's 9.9% lead suggests that for users running OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the mobile card is the better choice. Its higher memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s) and larger frame buffer (1536 MB vs 1024 MB) likely contribute to this result, though the benchmark score itself is the only hard evidence. For compute workloads that saturate memory or require larger datasets resident on the GPU, the GTX 460M's specifications point to a clear advantage.

The Quadro 2000, while losing the compute benchmark, does not cede every category. Its single-slot form factor and 178 mm length (7 inches) make it a low-profile, space-efficient option for workstation chassis. It has a higher TDP at 62 W versus 50 W, but it also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, which is a modest requirement for a desktop card. The Quadro 2000's display outputs—1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort—are fixed and professional-grade, whereas the GTX 460M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. In a fixed desktop workstation environment, the Quadro 2000's predictable connectivity and compact physical footprint are practical wins that no benchmark score can capture. That said, the data shows no benchmark where the Quadro 2000 wins outright; its wins are purely physical and interface-based.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the GF106 chip, a Fermi design built on TSMC's 40 nm process, with exactly 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 4.9M / mm². The shading unit count is also the same: 192 shading units on both. Texture mapping units match at 32 per card. The similarities end there, though, as the render output configuration differs. The GTX 460M has 24 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000 has 16 ROPs, a 33% reduction in the latter that directly impacts pixel throughput.

The memory subsystem is also distinct. The GTX 460M uses a 192-bit bus with 1536 MB of GDDR5, while the Quadro 2000 uses a 128-bit bus with 1024 MB. This yields a bandwidth gap: 60.00 GB/s for the 460M versus 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro 2000, a 44% difference. Clock speeds differ as well, with the Quadro 2000 running its memory at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 460M's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the 460M more than compensates. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither lists Vulkan support. The compute rates reflect the core config: the GTX 460M achieves 518.4 GFLOPS FP32 and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 manages 480.0 GFLOPS and 20.00 GTexel/s. Pixel rate also favors the 460M at 5.400 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specification fields, which explains their benchmark separation. The GTX 460M has a 192-bit memory bus versus the Quadro 2000's 128-bit bus, a direct contributor to the bandwidth disparity (60.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s). Memory capacity is another split: 1536 MB on the GTX 460M versus 1024 MB on the Quadro 2000. The ROP count is 24 on the 460M versus 16 on the Quadro 2000, and the resulting pixel rate is 5.400 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 518.4 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W and uses an MXM Module slot, meaning it is designed for laptops and has no power connectors of its own. The Quadro 2000 has a higher TDP of 62 W, is a single-slot desktop card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and requires no power connectors either, though it lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is the same PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro 2000 has a fixed display output set (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), while the GTX 460M's outputs are portable-device dependent. Release dates are close, with the GTX 460M launching on September 2, 2010, and the Quadro 2000 on December 23, 2010. The Quadro 2000 carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the GTX 460M has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, which is 9.9% higher than the Quadro 2000's 3898.

Q: Do the two cards share the same underlying chip?

A: Yes, both use the GF106 chip from the Fermi architecture, built on TSMC's 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 460M delivers 60.00 GB/s over a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000 provides 41.60 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare?

A: The GTX 460M reaches 518.4 GFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro 2000 is lower at 480.0 GFLOPS FP32. The GTX 460M also has a higher texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP, while the Quadro 2000 has a 62 W TDP. The Quadro 2000 lists a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 460M uses an MXM Module slot.

Q: Which card has more render output units?

A: The GTX 460M has 24 ROPs, whereas the Quadro 2000 has 16 ROPs, leading to a pixel rate of 5.400 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing raw compute and memory throughput, the data is clear: the GeForce GTX 460M wins the benchmark outright. Its 9.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 44% more memory bandwidth, 50% more memory capacity, and 33% more ROPs, makes it the superior performer in every measurable compute metric. Anyone running OpenCL workloads or needing a larger frame buffer should choose the GTX 460M, provided the platform can accommodate an MXM module.

The Quadro 2000, however, is not without its reasons to exist. It is a single-slot desktop card with a 178 mm length, 111 mm height, and fixed professional display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort). It has a higher TDP of 62 W but also a listed 250 W suggested PSU, which is a modest requirement for a workstation. Its launch MSRP was 599 USD. For a desktop workstation where space is constrained and display connectivity must be deterministic, the Quadro 2000's physical design is an advantage—but the benchmark data cannot justify a performance pick in its favor. The GTX 460M is the faster card, and the Quadro 2000's only wins are in form factor and interface predictability. The verdict, strictly from the data: choose the GTX 460M for performance, the Quadro 2000 for a fixed, single-slot desktop footprint.