NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the decisive winner in this comparison, delivering nearly four times the raw compute performance of the older GeForce GTX 460M. The data shows a single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the GTX 460M's 4282, a 288.7% advantage. The Quadro M3000M also holds a higher percentile rank (27th vs. 25th) and a significantly higher average benchmark score (4621 vs. 4282). For any task leveraging OpenCL compute, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice; the GTX 460M is simply outclassed by a generational and architectural gap that no driver optimization can close.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior product for compute workloads, while the GeForce GTX 460M should only be considered if legacy compatibility with its specific generation is an absolute requirement. Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Quadro M3000M wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL) by 288.7%, a margin so large that it defines the entire comparison. The GTX 460M, with an average benchmark score of 4282, sits near the bottom of the performance distribution, while the Quadro M3000M's average of 4621 places it in a higher tier, with its nearest rival being the GeForce GTX 970M at a -0.1% delta. Users requiring modern API support should note the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 460M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. The GTX 460M is a relic; the Quadro M3000M is the functional part, albeit an end-of-life one.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins in every measurable category where both have data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 16646, which is 288.7% higher than the GTX 460M's 4282. This single result indicates a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute, likely stemming from its architecture and memory subsystem. The Quadro M3000M also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests (4621 vs. 4282), and its percentile rank of 27 is above the GTX 460M's 25. Furthermore, the Quadro M3000M has a broader benchmark profile, with scores in Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, alongside G2D, G3D, and compute tests, whereas the GTX 460M only has a Geekbench OpenCL score. The GTX 460M's only "win" is in power consumption, with a 50 W TDP versus the Quadro M3000M's 75 W, though neither requires external power connectors. For raw performance, the Quadro M3000M wins outright; the GTX 460M offers lower power draw but at a catastrophic performance cost.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast and explains the performance disparity. The Quadro M3000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 460M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, built on a larger 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains only 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, with a density of 4.9M per mm². The Quadro M3000M features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs), while the GTX 460M has just 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This leads to a fill-rate advantage: the Quadro M3000M achieves 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s, versus the GTX 460M's 5.400 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 1.892 TFLOPS for the Quadro M3000M, dwarfing the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS. Neither chip features RT or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, scoring 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the GeForce GTX 460M's 4282, a 288.7% difference.

Q: Does the GeForce GTX 460M support Vulkan?

A: No. The API data lists Vulkan as null for the GTX 460M, while the Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s via a 256-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR5, while the GTX 460M has 60.00 GB/s via a 192-bit bus with 1536 MB GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors, compared to the GTX 460M's 1,170 million transistors.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP, and the GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP; neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Is the GTX 460M competitive in any benchmark?

A: No. The only shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where it loses by 288.7%. Its average benchmark score of 4282 is lower than the Quadro M3000M's 4621.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a landslide. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16646, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282. This yields a delta of 288.7% in favor of the Quadro M3000M, meaning the newer card is nearly four times faster in this compute workload. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational obliteration. The Quadro M3000M's score of 16646 is so high that it places the GPU in a different performance class, with its nearest rival being the GeForce GTX 970M at an average score of 4628, only 0.1% away. The GTX 460M's score of 4282, by contrast, puts it in the company of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) and AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). While the GTX 460M has no other benchmark scores to compare, the Quadro M3000M's additional Passmark results (G3D score of 5543, compute score of 2139) reinforce its superiority in both graphics and compute tasks. There are no benchmark victories for the GTX 460M in this dataset.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights the chasm between these two mobile GPUs. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 460M uses GF106 on a 40 nm process. Transistor count differs massively: 5,200 million vs. 1,170 million. Clock speeds are difficult to compare directly, as the Quadro M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz, while the GTX 460M has no base or boost clocks listed. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and an effective memory clock of 5 Gbps; the GTX 460M has 1536 MB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth and an effective memory clock of 2.5 Gbps. The compute resources are also vastly different: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the Quadro M3000M, versus 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs for the GTX 460M. The Quadro M3000M supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 460M is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. In terms of API support, the Quadro M3000M offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the GTX 460M offers DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. Finally, the TDP differs: 75 W for the Quadro M3000M vs. 50 W for the GTX 460M. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.