NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent distinct design philosophies from different eras. The GTX 460M is a Fermi-based consumer part, while the Quadro K3000M is a Kepler-based professional workstation GPU. Benchmark data shows a remarkably tight race, with the GTX 460M edging out the Quadro K3000M by a single percentage point in the sole Geekbench OpenCL test. Both cards sit at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier in the modern landscape.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate a near-tie, but the choice between these two hinges on workload and certification rather than raw compute. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4282 against the Quadro's 4241, a 1% advantage. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in a consumer context, the data points to the GTX 460M.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the more logical pick for professional environments. Its Kepler architecture is significantly more modern, featuring a 28 nm process node versus the GTX 460M's 40 nm node. The Quadro also offers more than double the shading units (576 vs. 192), a wider 256-bit memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s. While its benchmark score is marginally lower, the architectural advantages and professional lineage suggest better applicability for certified workstation tasks, even if the specific benchmark data does not quantify those gains. The verdict is clear: gamers and general users should favor the GTX 460M for its slight speed edge, while professionals requiring a workstation-class part should opt for the Quadro K3000M based on its superior specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 460M is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, manufactured on a more advanced 28 nm process. This allows NVIDIA to fit 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.0M per mm².

The compute resources differ substantially. The GTX 460M features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro K3000M scales this up to 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock speeds tell a different story: the GTX 460M's memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K3000M has a base and boost clock of 654 MHz for the core and a memory clock of 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The GTX 460M has no listed base or boost core clock in the data.

Memory configurations also diverge. The GTX 460M carries 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M doubles the bus width to 256-bit and increases capacity to 2 GB, yielding 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the Quadro a substantial memory throughput advantage. In terms of API support, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K3000M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 460M lists no Vulkan capability. The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, but the Quadro has a higher TDP at 75 W versus the GTX 460M's 50 W.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a clear but narrow win for the GTX 460M in the single benchmark test. It scores 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241, giving the GTX 460M a 1% lead. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, so the win count is 1-0 in favor of the GTX 460M.

The Quadro K3000M wins on architectural merits. Its 28 nm process node and Kepler architecture provide a more modern foundation. The 576 shading units represent a 3x increase over the GTX 460M's 192, and the 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is 49% higher than the GTX 460M's 60.00 GB/s. The 2 GB memory capacity also exceeds the 1536 MB of the GTX 460M. These specifications suggest the Quadro would excel in memory-intensive professional applications like CAD or 3D rendering, where larger memory pools and higher bandwidth are critical. The GTX 460M, despite its smaller memory footprint, manages to secure a higher compute score, indicating it may have better raw processing efficiency in OpenCL workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's score of 4241.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 460M provides 60.00 GB/s, a difference of roughly 49% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The GTX 460M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K3000M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460M does not list Vulkan support.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, which is higher than the GTX 460M's 50 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, triple the 192 found on the GTX 460M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M achieves a score of 4282, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trails with 4241. The delta is a marginal 1%, with the GTX 460M declared the winner. This is a remarkably close result, placing both cards within statistical noise of each other.

To contextualize this narrow margin, the nearest rivals data shows both GPUs surrounded by similar performers. The GTX 460M is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (which scores 4295) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). The Quadro K3000M is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 appears in the GTX 460M's rival list with a score of 4335, which is only 1.2% higher, highlighting how close the performance envelope is for this older chip.

The architectural disparity does not translate into a benchmark advantage for the Quadro. Despite having 3x the shading units, higher clocks (654 MHz base/boost vs. no listed core clock for the GTX 460M), and 49% more memory bandwidth, the Quadro K3000M still loses the compute test by 1%. This suggests the Fermi architecture in the GTX 460M may have a raw compute efficiency advantage in OpenCL, or that the benchmark is not fully utilizing the Quadro's additional resources. The 60.00 GB/s bandwidth of the GTX 460M proves sufficient to keep up with the Quadro's 89.60 GB/s in this specific workload. In summary, the benchmark data shows a statistical tie, with the GTX 460M holding a razor-thin edge, while the Quadro K3000M's superior specifications remain unquantified in this test suite.