NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both Fermi-architecture parts from NVIDIA, built on the same GF106 chip at TSMC's 40 nm process. Despite sharing silicon, they target different segments: the GTX 460M is a mobile graphics solution, while the Quadro 2000D is a desktop workstation card. The data shows a clear performance gap in favor of the GTX 460M, which scores 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro 2000D's 3930, a 9% difference. Both cards are end-of-life products, with the GTX 460M released on 2010-09-02 and the Quadro 2000D on 2011-10-04. Their specifications diverge in memory capacity, bus width, bandwidth, ROP count, TDP, and physical form factor, making each suited to different workloads and system configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The GTX 460M leads by 9% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Are the two GPUs based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GF106 chip from NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors and a die size of 238 mm².

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each card, and what does that imply for system integration?

A: The GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W and uses an MXM Module slot, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, is a single-slot card, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 460M draws less power but requires a mobile form factor.

Q: Which card has more ROPs, and what does that affect?

A: The GTX 460M has 24 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000D has 16 ROPs. This difference contributes to the GTX 460M's higher pixel rate of 5.400 GPixel/s versus the Quadro 2000D's 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro 2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GTX 460M has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same Fermi architecture, chip (GF106), process node (40 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (1,170 million), and die size (238 mm²). They also have identical shading unit counts at 192 and TMU counts at 32. The API support is the same: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support listed. The core architectural differences appear in the memory subsystem and render output stage.

The GTX 460M features 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, resulting in 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a narrower 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s. This 44% bandwidth advantage for the GTX 460M is significant for memory-bound workloads. The GTX 460M also has 24 ROPs versus 16 on the Quadro 2000D, which explains its higher pixel rate (5.400 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s). The memory clock differs slightly: the GTX 460M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 2000D runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), though the wider bus on the GTX 460M more than compensates for the lower clock.

The form factors diverge sharply. The GTX 460M is an MXM Module with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for laptops. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot desktop card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with 2x DVI outputs and no power connectors required. The Quadro 2000D's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the GTX 460M has no such specification, consistent with its mobile design where power delivery is handled by the laptop platform.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M for raw compute performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 460M scores 4282, and the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The GTX 460M wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 9% delta. Its percentileVsAllGpus is 25, compared to 23 for the Quadro 2000D, placing it slightly higher in the overall GPU distribution.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the GTX 460M is the stronger choice. It also offers more memory (1536 MB vs 1024 MB) and higher bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s), which matters for large datasets. However, the Quadro 2000D is a desktop card with a 62 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, making it easier to integrate into a standard workstation without a mobile platform. The GTX 460M, with its 50 W TDP and MXM form factor, requires a compatible laptop or MXM carrier board.

The Quadro 2000D's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (avg score 3919, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (avg score 3953, delta -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg score 3956, delta -0.7%). The GTX 460M's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W2100 (avg score 4295, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (avg score 4268, delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (avg score 4241, delta 1%). These groupings show that the GTX 460M competes in a slightly higher performance tier. Users needing a low-profile desktop workstation card with DVI outputs should consider the Quadro 2000D, while those seeking compute performance in a mobile form factor should opt for the GTX 460M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. Memory size: the GTX 460M has 1536 MB, the Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB. Memory bus width: 192-bit on the GTX 460M versus 128-bit on the Quadro 2000D. Memory bandwidth: 60.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. Memory clock: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) on the GTX 460M versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro 2000D. ROP count: 24 versus 16. Pixel rate: 5.400 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 21.60 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 518.4 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. TDP: 50 W versus 62 W. Slot width: MXM Module versus Single-slot. Suggested PSU: not listed for the GTX 460M, 250 W for the Quadro 2000D. Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 2x DVI. Dimensions: the GTX 460M has no listed dimensions, while the Quadro 2000D measures 178 mm by 111 mm. Release date: 2010-09-02 versus 2011-10-04. Predecessor: GeForce 300M versus Quadro FX Tesla. Successor: GeForce 500M versus Quadro Kepler. Launch MSRP: not listed for the GTX 460M, 599 USD for the Quadro 2000D.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 460M scores 4282, and the Quadro 2000D scores 3930. The GTX 460M wins with a 9% delta. This result aligns with the underlying specifications: the GTX 460M's higher FP32 throughput (518.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS), larger memory capacity (1536 MB vs 1024 MB), wider bus (192-bit vs 128-bit), and higher bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s) all contribute to its advantage in compute workloads. The Quadro 2000D's higher memory clock (650 MHz vs 625 MHz) does not offset the bus width disadvantage.

The GTX 460M's score of 4282 places it within 0.3% of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). It also leads the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 1%. The Quadro 2000D's score of 3930 is 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953). The performance gap between the two cards in question (9%) exceeds the differences seen among their respective nearest rivals, indicating a meaningful tier separation. The data shows that the GTX 460M performs closer to workstation cards like the Quadro K3000M and professional-level AMD FirePro W2100, while the Quadro 2000D sits alongside lower-tier mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460M wins decisively in compute performance, as demonstrated by the 9% OpenCL score advantage. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on general-purpose GPU computing, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulations, or data processing. Its larger memory (1536 MB) and higher bandwidth (60.00 GB/s) also give it an edge in tasks that require holding larger buffers or textures in VRAM. The higher pixel rate (5.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s) suggest better fill-rate performance for graphics workloads. The GTX 460M's lower TDP (50 W vs 62 W) makes it more power-efficient, which is a consideration for mobile systems where thermal and power budgets are constrained.

The Quadro 2000D wins in desktop integration and display flexibility. It is a single-slot card with 2x DVI outputs, making it straightforward to install in a standard desktop workstation. Its suggested PSU of 250 W means it can run in modest systems without additional power connectors. The Quadro 2000D also has a defined physical footprint (178 mm by 111 mm), which is useful for small-form-factor builds. For users who need a dedicated workstation card with dual DVI outputs and do not require the absolute maximum compute performance, the Quadro 2000D offers a practical solution. Its nearest rivals include the Quadro K2000D (0.3% lower score), which suggests it is competitive within its segment. The GTX 460M, by contrast, is tied to a mobile platform and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop manufacturer. The Quadro 2000D also benefits from a later release date (2011-10-04 vs 2010-09-02), which may imply more mature driver support for professional applications, though the data does not explicitly confirm this. In summary, the GTX 460M is the performance winner, while the Quadro 2000D is the form-factor and connectivity winner for desktop use.