NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents a narrowly split comparison, with only one overlapping benchmark test between the two cards. In that single head-to-head test, the GeForce GTX 460M edges out the Quadro P400 by a narrow margin. The GTX 460M wins the only direct comparison available, but the broader benchmark picture shows both cards occupying similar performance territory.

The Quadro P400 shows a stronger profile in compute-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4249 and Vulkan score of 5119 indicate that it handles modern API workloads with greater versatility. The Vulkan result is particularly notable, as the GTX 460M has no recorded Vulkan score at all. This makes the P400 the clear choice for any workload leveraging Vulkan, where the older card is simply absent from the data.

The GeForce GTX 460M wins in the pure OpenCL comparison, posting 4282 against the P400's 4249. This 0.8% difference is small enough to be considered within run-to-run variance, but the database records it as a win for the GTX 460M. The older Fermi architecture still manages to hold its own in this legacy compute test.

For users prioritizing modern API support and broader benchmark coverage, the Quadro P400 is the more capable option. For those working strictly within OpenCL environments where the GTX 460M's score is competitive, the older card remains viable. The P400's average benchmark score of 4684 across both tests exceeds the GTX 460M's 4282 single-test average, indicating that the P400's overall performance envelope is wider.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684 across its two recorded tests, while the GeForce GTX 460M has an average of 4282 from its single OpenCL test. The P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the GTX 460M's 25th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, while the Quadro P400 scores 4249, a difference of 0.8% in favor of the GTX 460M. This is the only benchmark test where both cards have recorded data.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro P400 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119 and lists Vulkan 1.4 API support. The GeForce GTX 460M has no Vulkan benchmark score and no Vulkan API support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput in FP32 operations?

A: The Quadro P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the GeForce GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS, making the P400 approximately 24% stronger in this metric.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GeForce GTX 460M has a TDP of 50 W. The P400 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 460M has no suggested PSU figure recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282 against the Quadro P400's 4249, a delta of -0.8% when viewed from the P400's perspective. The margin is minimal, representing a performance difference that would rarely be perceptible in real-world applications.

The broader benchmark data tells a more nuanced story. The Quadro P400's Vulkan score of 5119 demonstrates substantial compute capability in modern graphics APIs, a domain where the GTX 460M has no recorded presence. This absence is significant: Vulkan has become a standard interface for both gaming and compute workloads, and the P400's support positions it as the more future-proof option.

Looking at the rivals surrounding each card provides additional context. The Quadro P400's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, which scores 4727, placing it 0.9% ahead of the P400. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320 both score 4657, sitting 0.6% behind the P400. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, trailing by 1.2%. These tight margins indicate that the P400 sits in a densely packed performance cluster.

The GeForce GTX 460M's nearest rivals show a similar pattern. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295, sitting 0.3% ahead. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268, trailing by 0.3%. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, coming in 1% behind the GTX 460M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 scores 4335, which is 1.2% ahead, an unexpected result given the generational gap but recorded as such in the database.

The single head-to-head result, combined with the rival comparisons, places both cards within a narrow performance band. The GTX 460M's OpenCL win is real but small, and the P400's Vulkan capability gives it a functional advantage that the raw OpenCL comparison does not capture.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially across nearly every specification category. The Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung, containing 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The GeForce GTX 460M uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process from TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The P400's transistor density of 25.0M per mm² dwarfs the GTX 460M's 4.9M per mm².

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth and memory clocked at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth and memory clocked at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The GTX 460M's wider bus provides nearly double the bandwidth despite the smaller capacity.

Compute unit counts favor the P400 in shading units (256 versus 192) but the GTX 460M counters with more TMUs (32 versus 16) and ROPs (24 versus 16). The pixel rate heavily favors the P400 at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s. The texture rate is closer, with the P400 at 20.03 GTexel/s and the GTX 460M at 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute goes to the P400 at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS. The P400 also lists FP16 performance at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 460M has no FP16 figure recorded.

Power and physical specifications differ markedly. The P400 has a 30 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and lists a 200 W suggested PSU. The GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP, uses an MXM module form factor, and has no suggested PSU recorded. The P400 measures 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the GTX 460M has no dimensions recorded.

Bus interfaces and display outputs also differ. The P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. API support shows the P400 with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 460M has DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards spans three generations of NVIDIA GPU design. The Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture, released in 2017 as part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. The GeForce GTX 460M uses the Fermi architecture from 2010, belonging to the GeForce 400M generation. This seven-year gap manifests in fundamental design philosophy changes.

Pascal represents a mature 14 nm process design with high transistor density. The GP107 chip packs 3,300 million transistors into just 132 mm², achieving a density of 25.0M per mm². Fermi, by contrast, uses a 40 nm process from TSMC with 1,170 million transistors spread across a larger 238 mm² die, yielding only 4.9M per mm². The density difference is not merely academic: it allows Pascal to deliver higher compute throughput while consuming less power.

Compute architecture differences are evident in the FP32 and FP16 capabilities. The P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and includes FP16 support at 10.02 GFLOPS, albeit at a 1:64 ratio that suggests limited half-precision utility. The GTX 460M delivers 518.4 GFLOPS of FP32 with no FP16 capability recorded. The P400's FP32 advantage of roughly 24% comes from its more efficient shader design and higher clock speeds.

Memory architecture reflects the different design priorities. The GTX 460M's 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth was designed for high-throughput graphics in mobile gaming systems. The P400's 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth prioritizes low power and compact size for professional workstation environments. The P400 compensates with faster effective memory speed (4 Gbps versus 2.5 Gbps) and a much higher pixel rate.

Feature support shows the generational divide clearly. The P400 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), the modern API baseline. The GTX 460M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a legacy feature level, and has no Vulkan support at all. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The production status of both cards is end-of-life, with the P400 succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta, while the GTX 460M succeeds GeForce 300M and precedes GeForce 500M.

The power envelope difference is substantial: 30 W for the P400 versus 50 W for the GTX 460M. This aligns with the P400's professional positioning as a low-power workstation card, while the GTX 460M was designed for mobile gaming laptops where higher power was acceptable. The P400's single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors contrast with the GTX 460M's MXM module design, reflecting their different deployment scenarios.