NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's score of 3919. The GTX 460M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 460M sits between the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 0.3% ahead of the GTX 460M) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.3% behind). The Quadro K2000D's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3% ahead), while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 trails by 0.5%.

Q: What are the architecture generations of these two cards?

A: The GTX 460M uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, while the Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process. Both are built by TSMC and are now end-of-life products.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, exactly double the 192 shading units found in the GTX 460M. However, the GTX 460M has 24 ROPs versus the Quadro's 16 ROPs, and both have 32 TMUs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 460M offers 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K2000D provides 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has slightly higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K2000D achieves 7.632 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the GTX 460M's 5.400 GPixel/s. The Quadro also leads in texture rate at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 460M and Quadro K2000D represent two distinct NVIDIA architectures separated by a full generation shift. The GTX 460M is built on Fermi (chip GF106), manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die. The Quadro K2000D moves to Kepler (chip GK107), using a more advanced 28 nm process that crams 1,270 million transistors into just 118 mm². This gives the Quadro a transistor density of 10.8M per mm², more than double the GTX 460M's 4.9M per mm².

The Kepler architecture brings a fundamental redesign in shader organization. The Quadro K2000D fields 384 shading units, double the GTX 460M's 192. Yet the older Fermi card retains more ROPs (24 versus 16), which partially explains why its pixel rate lags less dramatically than its shader count might suggest. Both cards feature 32 texture mapping units, so texture work scales with clock behavior rather than unit count.

Memory subsystems differ in both capacity and bus width. The GTX 460M uses a 192-bit interface for its 1536 MB frame buffer, while the Quadro K2000D uses a 128-bit bus for 2 GB. The Quadro compensates with faster effective memory speed (4 Gbps versus 2.5 Gbps), yielding 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s — a modest bandwidth advantage despite the narrower path.

Feature support shows subtle divergence. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K2000D adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 460M lists no Vulkan capability at all. The Quadro also uses a single-slot form factor with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the GTX 460M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs.

Power profiles are nearly identical — 50 W for the GTX 460M and 51 W for the Quadro K2000D — though the Quadro lists a 250 W suggested PSU while the GTX 460M has none specified. Both draw power without auxiliary connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460M wins the only directly comparable benchmark, scoring 9.3% higher in Geekbench OpenCL. This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. Its higher ROP count (24 versus 16) suggests a design more oriented toward raw pixel throughput, and the 192-bit memory bus provides a wider data path for certain access patterns.

The Quadro K2000D, despite losing the head-to-head, offers advantages that matter in professional contexts. It has double the shading units (384 versus 192), which translates to higher theoretical FP32 performance at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s both exceed the GTX 460M's corresponding figures. For workloads that scale with shader count and texture throughput, the Quadro should pull ahead despite its lower OpenCL score.

The Quadro also brings Vulkan support, which the GTX 460M lacks entirely. This matters for modern applications that leverage Vulkan for graphics or compute. The Quadro's 2 GB memory capacity gives it more headroom for texture-heavy scenes or larger datasets, even though its bandwidth advantage is slim (64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s).

Form factor separates use cases as well. The GTX 460M is an MXM module designed for laptops and mobile workstations, while the Quadro K2000D is a single-slot desktop card with fixed display outputs. Anyone building a desktop workstation with legacy GPU needs would naturally gravitate toward the Quadro, while mobile users would choose the GTX 460M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

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

| 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 Clock | 625 MHz / 2.5 Gbps | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| 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 | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan | None | 1.2.175 |

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

| Predecessor | GeForce 300M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 500M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | None | 599 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 460M posts 4282 against the Quadro K2000D's 3919. That is a 9.3% delta in favor of the older Fermi card. This result is striking because the Quadro carries roughly 41% more theoretical FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS) and more than double the shading units.

The GTX 460M's win likely stems from its wider 192-bit memory bus and lower effective memory latency profile, even though the Quadro edges it in raw bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s). OpenCL workloads often reward memory access patterns that favor wider buses, and the GTX 460M's 24 ROPs may also help with certain compute operations that touch the raster pipeline.

Looking at percentile standings, the GTX 460M places in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. These are adjacent rankings, confirming that the two cards occupy a very similar performance tier despite their architectural differences. The GTX 460M's nearest rivals bracket it tightly: the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) is 0.3% faster, and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) is 0.3% slower. The Quadro K2000D's closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930), is a mere 0.3% ahead.

The delta between the two cards is larger than the deltas separating each from its nearest rivals. The GTX 460M's 9.3% lead over the Quadro K2000D dwarfs the 0.3-1% swings seen within their respective rival clusters. This suggests that while both cards perform at roughly the same tier, the GTX 460M holds a meaningful, consistent edge in OpenCL compute rather than a marginal one.

Interestingly, the GTX 460M's rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335, which is only 1.2% faster. This shows that the GTX 460M's OpenCL score remains competitive with far newer hardware in this specific test, likely due to the benchmark's sensitivity to memory architecture rather than raw shader throughput. The Quadro K2000D's rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953) and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), reinforcing that it competes in the entry-level discrete and integrated GPU space.

In practical terms, the GTX 460M is the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks, while the Quadro K2000D offers superior theoretical graphics throughput and modern API support. The head-to-head result favors the GTX 460M, but the Quadro's strengths in shading, texturing, and pixel fill could flip the outcome in geometry-heavy or shader-bound workloads that Geekbench OpenCL does not emphasize.