NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a decisive advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. The Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points, while the GeForce GTX 460M trails at 4282 points. This represents a 16.3% lead for the Quadro 4000, which is a substantial margin in compute-oriented workloads. The delta is large enough to place these two cards in different performance tiers despite sharing the same Fermi architecture generation.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the gap. The Quadro 4000 sits within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, a much newer and higher-end product, and it edges out the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 0.4%. It also leads the AMD Radeon R7 M360 by 1%. On the other side, the GTX 460M is nearly tied with the AMD FirePro W2100 (0.3% behind) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (0.3% ahead), while falling 1.2% short of the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6. The percentile data tells the same story: the Quadro 4000 ranks at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile. That four-point gap in percentile ranking aligns with the raw score difference.

The single head-to-head entry shows a clean sweep: one win for the Quadro 4000, zero for the GTX 460M. No benchmark in the database favors the mobile part. For OpenCL compute tasks, which stress floating-point throughput and memory bandwidth, the Quadro 4000 is the clear choice. The GTX 460M does hold a theoretical advantage in texture rate, 21.60 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s, but that advantage does not translate into a higher aggregate benchmark score in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process, but they are fundamentally different chips. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 die, the largest Fermi silicon, while the GTX 460M uses the GF106 die, a smaller and more power-efficient variant. The transistor counts reflect this split: the GF100 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GF106, by contrast, contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, with a density of 4.9M per mm². The Quadro 4000's die is more than twice the physical size and carries nearly three times the transistor budget.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The shading unit count is 33% higher on the Quadro 4000, which explains its higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s. The texture rate, however, is reversed: the GTX 460M achieves 21.60 GTexel/s compared to 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000, because the GTX 460M runs its TMUs at a higher effective clock relative to its other units.

Floating-point performance is close but slightly favors the GTX 460M in raw FP32 throughput. The Quadro 4000 delivers 486.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 460M reaches 518.4 GFLOPS, a 6.6% difference. This is curious given the Quadro's larger die, but clock behavior and shader organization on the GF106 allow it to edge ahead in pure math throughput. The benchmark score, however, does not follow this theoretical figure, which suggests that memory bandwidth and other factors dominate the OpenCL workload.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460M ships with 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 60.00 GB/s. The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is 49.8%, a massive gap that likely explains its OpenCL win despite lower FP32 peak. The memory clock also differs: the Quadro runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the GTX 460M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Power and physical design are starkly different. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot desktop card rated at 142 W TDP, requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. The GTX 460M is an MXM module with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for laptops. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the GTX 460M has no recorded dimensions due to its portable-device form factor. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, whereas the GTX 460M's outputs are portable-device dependent.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The production status for both is end-of-life. Release dates are close: the GTX 460M launched on September 2, 2010, and the Quadro 4000 on November 1, 2010. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, while the GTX 460M sits between the GeForce 300M and GeForce 500M generations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points, which is 16.3% higher than the GeForce GTX 460M's 4282 points. The Quadro 4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: Why does the GTX 460M have a higher FP32 throughput despite losing the benchmark?

A: The GTX 460M reaches 518.4 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000. However, the Quadro's memory bandwidth is 49.8% higher (89.86 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s), which appears to be the dominant factor in the OpenCL workload.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with a memory clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA's Fermi architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. However, they use different dies: the Quadro 4000 uses GF100, while the GTX 460M uses GF106.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W suggested power supply. The GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating due to its mobile MXM form factor.

Q: How do these cards rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro 4000 is at the 29th percentile, while the GTX 460M is at the 25th percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (0.2% ahead) and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (0.4% behind), while the GTX 460M is closely matched with the AMD FirePro W2100 and AMD Radeon Vega 3.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The chip is the most fundamental split: GF100 versus GF106. The Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the GTX 460M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm². The memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). Memory size is 2 GB versus 1536 MB. Bus width is 256-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is 89.86 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s.

Shading units: 256 versus 192. TMUs: 32 versus 32 (no difference). ROPs: 32 versus 24. Pixel rate: 7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 15.20 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32: 486.4 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS. TDP: 142 W versus 50 W. Slot width: single-slot versus MXM module. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 300 W versus none. Display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort versus portable-device dependent. Dimensions: 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm versus no recorded dimensions.

The bus interface is the same (PCIe 2.0 x16). DirectX support is the same (12, 11_0). OpenGL support is the same (4.6). Vulkan support is absent for both. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life. The release dates differ by about two months, with the GTX 460M launching first. The Quadro 4000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, while the GTX 460M has no MSRP recorded. The predecessor and successor lines are entirely different: Quadro FX Tesla to Quadro Kepler versus GeForce 300M to GeForce 500M.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000 wins the only recorded benchmark and does so by a wide margin. Its 16.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that stress memory bandwidth and general-purpose throughput. The 89.86 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus are the likely reasons for this dominance. The Quadro also wins on pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s), which matters for fill-rate-bound rendering tasks. Its 2 GB frame buffer is larger, which helps with larger datasets in both professional visualization and compute applications. The desktop form factor with dual DisplayPort outputs suits fixed workstations, and the 142 W TDP is manageable for a single-slot card.

The GTX 460M wins in raw FP32 throughput, posting 518.4 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. It also has a higher texture rate at 21.60 GTexel/s, more than 42% above the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s. This makes it potentially better suited for texture-heavy graphics workloads, though no benchmark in the database captures that scenario. The GTX 460M's 50 W TDP is dramatically lower, making it the only viable option for laptop or portable implementations. Its lack of power connectors and MXM form factor mean it can fit in systems where the Quadro 4000 physically cannot. The 1536 MB memory capacity, while smaller, is still substantial for mobile use.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the decision hinges on the workload. The Quadro 4000 is the stronger compute performer and offers more memory bandwidth and display connectivity. The GTX 460M is a low-power mobile part with a theoretical edge in texture and FP32 metrics, but the recorded data shows it losing in the only measurable benchmark. The Quadro's percentile ranking (29th versus 25th) further confirms that it occupies a higher performance tier overall. The GTX 460M's closest rivals are integrated and entry-level discrete parts, while the Quadro 4000 trades blows with far newer mainstream GPUs, including the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB. That comparison alone illustrates the class gap between these two Fermi-era cards.