NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 460M and the Quadro K2000 are both end-of-life NVIDIA parts, but they represent two distinct philosophies: one is a high-end mobile gaming chip from the Fermi era, the other a professional desktop workstation card built on the newer Kepler architecture. In the only direct benchmark comparison available, the older GTX 460M takes the win, but the data reveals a far more nuanced picture when examining the full specification sheets and the competitive landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark result is a Geekbench OpenCL test, and it goes decisively to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. The mobile Fermi chip scores 4282 points, while the Quadro K2000 manages 4071 points. This gives the GTX 460M a 5.2% performance advantage in this specific compute workload. This is a significant margin for two cards from different generations, suggesting that the GTX 460M's wider 192-bit memory bus and higher raw shading unit count in its architecture provide a tangible benefit in OpenCL compute tasks.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 460M's score places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4282. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295 (a delta of -0.3%), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 (a delta of 0.3%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 (a delta of 1%). The GTX 460M sits right in the middle of this pack, trading blows with these competing solutions within a 1.2% margin.

The Quadro K2000, by contrast, sits at the 24th percentile with an average benchmark score of 3964 across its three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan). Its nearest rivals are also closely matched: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957 (a delta of 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 (a delta of 0.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (a delta of 0.3%). The K2000's average score is dragged down by its Metal score of 3630, which is notably lower than its OpenCL score of 4071 and its Vulkan score of 4191. This suggests that while its raw compute potential is solid, its performance varies significantly depending on the API being used.

When comparing the two directly, the GTX 460M's single OpenCL score of 4282 is 5.2% higher than the K2000's OpenCL score of 4071. However, the K2000's Vulkan score of 4191 is within 2.1% of the GTX 460M's OpenCL result, showing that the newer card is capable of competitive performance in modern graphics APIs. The data clearly shows a win for the GTX 460M in the one test they share, but the K2000 demonstrates broader API support that could make it more versatile in real-world professional applications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, representing a full generation shift. The GeForce GTX 460M is built on the GF106 chip using the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip with the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This process shrink allows the K2000 to pack 1,270 million transistors into a die size of just 118 mm², achieving a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The GTX 460M, with its older process, contains 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 4.9M per mm².

The core configurations diverge significantly. The GTX 460M features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro K2000 doubles the shading units to 384, keeps the same 32 TMUs, but reduces ROPs to 16. This configuration gives the K2000 a theoretical peak FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS, compared to the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS. The K2000 also leads in pixel rate at 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer ROPs, the Kepler architecture's higher clock efficiency allows the K2000 to outpace the Fermi chip in these throughput metrics.

Memory subsystems also differ. The GTX 460M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth with an effective memory clock of 2.5 Gbps. The Quadro K2000 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a narrower 128-bit bus, but compensates with a higher effective clock of 4 Gbps, resulting in 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000's slightly higher bandwidth, combined with its larger capacity, makes it better suited for holding larger datasets in professional workloads.

Power and physical specifications tell the story of their intended use cases. The GTX 460M is an MXM Module with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for laptops. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 51 W TDP, also requiring no power connectors, but it does suggest a 250 W power supply. The K2000 is 202 mm long and 111 mm high. Both use a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The GTX 460M's display outputs are portable-device-dependent, while the K2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. In API support, both offer DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K2000 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which is a key advantage for modern cross-platform applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro K2000 leads in FP32 compute with 732.7 GFLOPS, compared to the GeForce GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS, a difference of over 40%.

Q: Why does the older GTX 460M win the OpenCL benchmark?

A: Despite lower theoretical FP32 performance, the GTX 460M scored 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4071 for the K2000, a 5.2% advantage. This suggests its 192-bit memory bus and 24 ROPs provide a real-world benefit in this specific workload.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, only the Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the GTX 460M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce GTX 460M has 1536 MB with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The K2000 offers both more capacity and slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card is physically smaller and more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a smaller die size at 118 mm² versus 238 mm² for the GTX 460M, and its TDP is nearly identical at 51 W versus 50 W. However, the K2000 is a single-slot desktop card, while the GTX 460M is an MXM module for portable devices.

Q: How do these cards compare to their closest rivals?

A: The GTX 460M (25th percentile) is within 1.2% of the AMD FirePro W2100 and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. The Quadro K2000 (24th percentile) is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and the AMD Radeon R5 M420.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict for specific use cases. The GeForce GTX 460M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, showing a 5.2% lead in OpenCL performance. For users running compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, the GTX 460M is objectively the faster card despite its older architecture. Its higher pixel rate of 5.400 GPixel/s, while lower than the K2000's 7.632 GPixel/s, still demonstrates a capable fill-rate engine for its generation.

However, the Quadro K2000 is the more complete modern package. Its Vulkan 1.2.175 support is a significant advantage, enabling compatibility with a wider range of current software. Its higher FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS, larger 2 GB memory capacity, and slightly higher bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s make it more suitable for professional 3D rendering and CAD workloads that demand more VRAM and benefit from compute shaders. The K2000's 384 shading units are double the GTX 460M's 192, providing a substantial advantage in parallel compute tasks that scale with shader count.

The launch MSRP of the Quadro K2000 was 599 USD, positioning it as a professional-grade tool. The GTX 460M, with no listed MSRP, was a consumer mobile part. This distinction matters: the K2000 was built for reliability and certification in workstation environments, while the GTX 460M was built for gaming performance in laptops. The benchmark data shows the GTX 460M can outcompute the K2000 in one specific test, but the K2000 offers a more balanced feature set for a broader range of professional applications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 2.5 Gbps effective | 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 60.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.400 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 518.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Support | None | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2010-09-02 | 2013-02-28 |

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 460M wins in the direct OpenCL benchmark, scoring 4282 versus 4071 for the K2000. It also has a wider 192-bit memory bus and more ROPs (24 versus 16), which can benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks. Its lower TDP of 50 W and MXM form factor make it the only viable choice for portable laptop implementations where space and cooling are constrained. The GTX 460M also holds a slight edge in its nearest-rival comparisons, being within 1.2% of the RTX 4070 GDDR6 in the provided data, though this is likely a synthetic anomaly.

The Quadro K2000 wins in nearly every other measurable category. Its 384 shading units are double the GTX 460M's 192, giving it a massive advantage in parallel compute workloads that utilize shader processors. Its FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS is 41% higher than the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS. The K2000 also wins in pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s), memory capacity (2 GB versus 1536 MB), and memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s). Its Vulkan support, dual DisplayPort outputs, and single-slot desktop form factor make it the superior choice for professional workstation use, multi-monitor setups, and modern software environments that leverage Vulkan. The K2000's smaller die and higher transistor density also indicate a more efficient architecture, and its later release date in 2013 gives it a generational advantage in feature support.