NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 460M and Quadro K2100M are two mobile graphics processors from different eras, targeting different professional and consumer workloads. The data shows a clear but narrow victory for the newer Quadro part in the single available compute benchmark, yet the architectural gulf between Fermi and Kepler tells a deeper story about efficiency, feature support, and raw throughput. This analysis breaks down where each chip holds an edge based strictly on the benchmark results and hardware specifications provided.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the only direct comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587, beating the GeForce GTX 460M's 4282 by a delta of -6.6% (with the negative sign indicating the GTX 460M is behind). This represents a win for the Quadro in general-purpose compute workloads, which aligns with its professional mobile workstation positioning.

However, the GTX 460M is not without its own statistical stronghold. Looking at the nearest rival comparisons, the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4282. It edges out the AMD Radeon Vega 3 by 0.3% and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 1%, while trailing the AMD FirePro W2100 by 0.3% and the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.2%. This shows the GTX 460M is clustered tightly with mid-range parts from multiple generations.

The Quadro K2100M, also at the 25th percentile, has an average score of 4151 across its three benchmark entries (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan). Its nearest rivals show a wider spread: it leads the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB by 1.4% and the Intel HD Graphics 630 by 1.9%, but falls behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 by 0.4% and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1%. The Quadro's win in the head-to-head is its defining competitive advantage, but its overall average is dragged down by lower scores in other API tests.

The GTX 460M has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the Quadro K2100M has one. For pure compute throughput in the OpenCL API, the Quadro is the winner. For users relying on older DirectX or OpenGL workloads, the data does not provide a direct comparison, but the architectural differences below suggest where each might excel.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing nodes and microarchitectures, which explains their performance characteristics. The GeForce GTX 460M uses the GF106 chip built on TSMC's 40 nm process, part of the Fermi architecture from the GeForce 400M generation. The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip on a more advanced 28 nm TSMC node, employing the Kepler architecture from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) series.

The transistor counts reflect the node jump. The Quadro's GK106S packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The GTX 460M's GF106 contains 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die, giving a density of just 4.9M per mm². This means the Kepler part fits more than twice the transistors into a slightly smaller physical footprint, a clear generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The GTX 460M offers 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a narrower 128-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 48.13 GB/s. Despite having less bandwidth, the Quadro compensates with a much higher memory clock: 752 MHz base (3 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 460M's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro also has a higher base and boost clock of 667 MHz, while the GTX 460M's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

Compute resources are where the Quadro pulls ahead decisively. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This translates to a peak FP32 throughput of 768.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 518.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 460M. The Quadro also leads in pixel rate (8.004 GPixel/s vs 5.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.02 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s), despite having fewer ROPs.

Power consumption is close but favors the older chip slightly: the GTX 460M is rated at 50 W TDP, while the Quadro K2100M is rated at 55 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro supports a newer bus interface (MXM-A 3.0 vs PCIe 2.0 x16) and adds Vulkan API support (version 1.2.175), while both share DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it provides a clear result. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282. The delta percentage is -6.6%, indicating the GTX 460M is 6.6% slower than the Quadro in this test. This margin is modest but consistent with the Quadro's 48.2% higher FP32 throughput (768.4 vs 518.4 GFLOPS) and its superior texture and pixel rates.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro K2100M also posts scores in other APIs that the GTX 460M lacks entirely. The Quadro achieves 3524 in Geekbench Metal and 4343 in Geekbench Vulkan, showing it can handle Apple's Metal framework and the cross-platform Vulkan API. The GTX 460M has no Metal or Vulkan entries in the data, suggesting its software support is limited to older interfaces like OpenCL and DirectX 11.

The GTX 460M's nearest rival data provides additional context for its OpenCL score. Its 4282 average sits between the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, +0.3% for the AMD part) and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, +0.3% for the GTX). This places the GTX 460M in a tight cluster of low-end to mid-range GPUs, all within a 1.2% spread. The Quadro K2100M's nearest rivals are similarly clustered: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170, +0.4% for the AMD) and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, +1% for the GTX) are close, while the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, +1.4% for the Quadro) and Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, +1.9% for the Quadro) are further behind.

The win count is decisive: 0 wins for the GTX 460M and 1 win for the Quadro K2100M. The only direct comparison available favors the Quadro, and the margin, while small, is consistent across the compute-relevant specifications. The GTX 460M's higher memory bandwidth (60.00 vs 48.13 GB/s) does not translate into a compute victory, indicating that the Quadro's shader count and clock speed are more impactful for OpenCL workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, which is 6.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M's 4282 score in the head-to-head test.

Q: Does the GTX 460M support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 460M has no Vulkan API entry in its specifications. The Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175, along with DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460M offers 60.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 192-bit bus with 1536 MB GDDR5 memory. The Quadro K2100M has 48.13 GB/s on a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5 memory, but runs its memory at a higher effective speed of 3 Gbps versus 2.5 Gbps.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, while the GTX 460M has 192 shading units. The Quadro also has more TMUs (48 vs 32) but fewer ROPs (16 vs 24).

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W. Both use MXM modules with no external power connectors.

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

A: The GTX 460M's 4282 average score is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3. The Quadro K2100M's 4151 average is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and 1% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, while leading the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB by 1.4% and the Intel HD Graphics 630 by 1.9%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one thing clear: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the superior compute performer. It wins the only head-to-head test available, posting a 4587 OpenCL score versus the GTX 460M's 4282. This result is backed by the hardware specifications — the Quadro has triple the shading units (576 vs 192), 48.2% higher FP32 throughput (768.4 vs 518.4 GFLOPS), and a more advanced 28 nm Kepler architecture with Vulkan support. The GTX 460M's advantages are limited to memory bandwidth (60.00 vs 48.13 GB/s), a wider 192-bit bus, and a slightly lower 50 W TDP.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on workload. The Quadro K2100M is the pick for OpenCL compute tasks, professional 3D rendering, or any application that can leverage its higher shader count and newer API support. Its Vulkan capability (1.2.175) opens the door to modern cross-platform graphics workloads that the GTX 460M simply cannot handle. The GTX 460M, despite its age, remains competitive in raw memory throughput and slightly lower power draw, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive legacy applications.

The average benchmark scores tell a cautionary tale. The Quadro's overall average of 4151 is lower than its OpenCL head-to-head score, dragged down by its Metal result of 3524. This means the Quadro's advantage is not universal across all APIs — in Metal, it would likely fall behind the GTX 460M's OpenCL showing. The GTX 460M, with a single benchmark entry, has no such variance, making its 4282 score a more consistent indicator of its compute performance.

In the end, the data supports the Quadro K2100M as the more capable part for modern compute and graphics tasks, thanks to its newer architecture, higher shader count, and broader API support. The GTX 460M remains a viable option for legacy DirectX 11 workloads where its wider memory bus and lower TDP offer tangible benefits. Neither GPU is a champion — both sit at the 25th percentile of all GPUs — but within this pairing, the Quadro's single head-to-head win and superior specifications make it the recommended choice for most users.