NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the GTX 460M scores 4282, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the GTX 460M a decisive 15.2% advantage, and the data records a single win for the GTX 460M with zero wins for the Quadro 3000M.

The 15.2% delta is substantial for two mobile GPUs from the same Fermi architecture family. To contextualize this, the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile. This means the GTX 460M outperforms roughly 3 percentage points more of the entire GPU population, a modest but consistent edge.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces the gap. The GTX 460M's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W2100, which averages 4295, a mere 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 trails by 0.3% at 4268, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is 1% behind at 4241. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, a much newer and higher-tier product, scores 4335, only 1.2% ahead of the GTX 460M in this specific OpenCL workload, which shows how competitive this older chip remains in raw compute.

The Quadro 3000M's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740, which is 0.6% ahead of the Quadro 3000M. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M trails by 0.6% at 3694, and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 is 1.9% behind at 3649. The Quadro 3000M's score of 3718 places it in a cluster of lower-tier mobile and desktop parts, whereas the GTX 460M competes with a slightly stronger group.

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the GTX 460M is the faster card in this test, and the margin is wide enough to matter in real-world OpenCL compute workloads. However, the Quadro 3000M is not far off in percentile ranking, indicating that while the GTX 460M wins, the Quadro 3000M is still within a competitive range for its own class.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, which is 15.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's score of 3718 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark.

Q: How does the GTX 460M compare to its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro W2100?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295, which is 0.3% ahead of the GTX 460M's 4282. This makes the FirePro W2100 the closest competitor, with a negligible margin.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro 3000M in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M averages 3717, which is exactly 0% different from the Quadro 3000M's 3718. The GeForce GT 635M is also close, sitting 0.6% ahead at 3740.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M beat any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes, the Quadro 3000M at 3718 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694, 0.6% behind) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.9% behind). It trails the GeForce GT 635M and ties with the GeForce GT 740M.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs?

A: The GTX 460M is at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 3000M is at the 22nd percentile. This means the GTX 460M ranks higher in the overall distribution.

Q: Is the GTX 460M's win over the Quadro 3000M consistent across all benchmarks?

A: The database records only one head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), and the GTX 460M wins that single test. There are no other recorded head-to-head comparisons, so the data reflects a 1-0 win count in favor of the GTX 460M.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process node, but they use different chips. The GTX 460M is based on the GF106 chip, while the Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip. The transistor counts differ significantly: the GF106 packs 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GF104 is a larger chip, containing 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

The shading unit count is a major differentiator. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, while the Quadro 3000M has 240, giving the Quadro a 25% advantage in raw shader count. Texture mapping units follow the same pattern: the GTX 460M has 32 TMUs, while the Quadro 3000M has 40. Raster operation units also favor the Quadro, with 32 ROPs versus the GTX 460M's 24.

Despite having fewer shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, the GTX 460M achieves higher fill rates. Its pixel rate is 5.400 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s, a 20% advantage. The texture rate for the GTX 460M is 21.60 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 3000M manages only 18.00 GTexel/s. This indicates that the GTX 460M runs at higher clock speeds, which compensates for its lower core counts.

The FP32 compute performance follows the same trend. The GTX 460M delivers 518.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 3000M delivers 432.0 GFLOPS, a 20% difference in favor of the GTX 460M. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life products.

Both GPUs share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The memory clocks are identical at 625 MHz, translating to 2.5 Gbps effective. The production status for both is end-of-life, and both use the MXM Module slot width with no power connectors required.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications. Memory capacity differs: the GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5, while the Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5. The memory bus width is wider on the Quadro 3000M at 256 bit, compared to the GTX 460M's 192 bit. This gives the Quadro 3000M a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, while the GTX 460M achieves 60.00 GB/s, a 33% bandwidth advantage for the Quadro.

The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the Quadro 3000M, as detailed in the architecture section. The GTX 460M counters with higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance. The power draw differs as well: the GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, meaning the GTX 460M delivers more compute performance while consuming less power.

The bus interface is another point of difference. The GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro 3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both cards have "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning the actual connectors vary by laptop implementation. The release dates place the GTX 460M first, released on 2010-09-02, while the Quadro 3000M followed on 2011-02-21.

The generations differ: the GTX 460M belongs to the GeForce 400M series, while the Quadro 3000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) series. Their predecessors and successors also differ, with the GTX 460M succeeding the GeForce 300M and being succeeded by the GeForce 500M, while the Quadro 3000M succeeds the Quadro FX Mobile and is succeeded by the Quadro Kepler-M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M wins decisively in raw compute performance as measured by the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. Its 15.2% score advantage makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-based workloads such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, and other compute-heavy tasks. The GTX 460M also wins on efficiency, delivering higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 GFLOPS while drawing 25 W less power (50 W versus 75 W). This makes it the more power-efficient option for mobile workstations or gaming laptops where battery life and thermals matter.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 2 GB of VRAM and an 80.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, it holds a 33% bandwidth advantage over the GTX 460M. This matters for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture datasets, high-resolution frame buffers, or certain scientific computing tasks that require frequent memory access. The Quadro 3000M also has more shading units (240 versus 192), more TMUs (40 versus 32), and more ROPs (32 versus 24), which could theoretically benefit workloads that scale with these resources, even though the recorded benchmark does not show this.

The Quadro 3000M's wider bus and larger memory pool also make it potentially better suited for professional applications that require large working sets, such as CAD, 3D modeling, or video editing with high-resolution assets. However, the database contains no benchmark data for these specific workloads, so this remains an inference from the memory specifications rather than a measured result.

In terms of the recorded benchmark, the GTX 460M wins 1-0. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile, three points above the Quadro 3000M's 22nd percentile. The GTX 460M also competes against stronger rivals (such as the RTX 4070 GDDR6, which is only 1.2% ahead), whereas the Quadro 3000M's rivals are mostly lower-tier parts like the GeForce GT 740M and GeForce 825M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. It scores 15.2% higher than the Quadro 3000M in the Geekbench OpenCL test, delivers higher pixel and texture rates, and achieves greater FP32 throughput while consuming 25 W less power. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications or general-purpose GPU computing, the GTX 460M is the better choice based on the measured results.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, however, holds advantages in memory capacity (2 GB versus 1536 MB) and memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s). It also has a larger die (332 mm² versus 238 mm²) and more transistors (1,950 million versus 1,170 million), which reflects its more complex chip design. For workloads that are heavily memory-bound, the Quadro 3000M's wider 256-bit bus and larger frame buffer could provide benefits that the OpenCL benchmark does not capture.

Users who prioritize raw compute speed, power efficiency, and the higher percentile ranking should choose the GTX 460M. Users who need larger memory capacity for texture-heavy professional applications, or who prefer the Quadro product line for its intended professional certification and driver ecosystem (though not measured here), may find the Quadro 3000M more suitable. The benchmark record, however, unambiguously favors the GTX 460M, with its only recorded head-to-head win being a decisive 15.2% margin.