NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a narrow contest. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9,294 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 points. That gives the GTX 465 a 1.6% lead, a margin that falls well within run-to-run variance for most workloads. The GTX 465 claims the only head-to-head win in the recorded data, but the practical difference is small enough that neither card can claim a decisive performance advantage in compute tasks.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these two parts are. The GTX 465 sits between the GeForce GTX 960 (9,273) and the GeForce GTX 850M (9,302), with a delta of just 0.2% and -0.1% respectively. The Quadro K4100M, meanwhile, lands near the GeForce GTX 460 (7,925), trailing by 0.2%, and sits 1.7% behind both the Quadro P5000 (8,039) and the GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). In percentile terms, the GTX 465 ranks at the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4100M ranks at the 41st percentile. The five-point percentile gap reflects the slight edge in raw OpenCL score, but both parts occupy the same performance tier.

The average benchmark score tells a different story when other test types are included. The Quadro K4100M has two recorded benchmarks: a Geekbench Metal score of 6,662 and an OpenCL score of 9,149, producing an average of 7,906. The GTX 465 has only the OpenCL result, so its average equals 9,294. That average difference of 17.5% in favor of the GTX 465 is entirely an artifact of the Metal test dragging down the Quadro's mean, not a sign that the Quadro is fundamentally slower in all tasks. On the one test where both parts appear, they are effectively tied.

For raw compute throughput, the specifications point to the Quadro having more theoretical muscle. The K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 855.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 465, a 90% advantage on paper. Yet the OpenCL scores do not reflect that gap, which suggests the GTX 465's older Fermi architecture extracts more real-world efficiency from its shader array, or the benchmark workload does not scale with the Kepler part's wider design.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip, built on Fermi architecture at TSMC's 40 nm node. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip, built on Kepler architecture at TSMC's 28 nm node. The process shrink is significant: the Kepler die measures 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, while the Fermi die spans 529 mm² with 3,100 million transistors. That translates to a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm² for the Quadro versus 5.9 million per mm² for the GTX 465. The Quadro packs more transistors into a smaller area, a direct benefit of the newer process.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro K4100M carries 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has more than three times the shader count and more than double the TMU count, yet its pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s is only 27% higher than the GTX 465's 13.38 GPixel/s. The texture rate gap is larger: 67.78 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s, a 153% difference. These ratios suggest the Kepler architecture achieves higher throughput per clock per unit, but the Fermi part's higher memory clock compensates in some operations.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, with no dynamic range. The GTX 465's core clock is not recorded in the database, but its memory runs at 802 MHz, yielding 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Quadro's memory runs at 800 MHz, also 3.2 Gbps effective. The memory buses are identical at 256 bit, and bandwidth is nearly the same: 102.7 GB/s for the GTX 465 versus 102.4 GB/s for the Quadro. Memory size is a major point of divergence, with 4 GB on the Quadro versus 1 GB on the GTX 465.

API support shows one clear differentiator. Both parts support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 465 lists no Vulkan support in the database. For modern applications that rely on Vulkan, the Quadro is the only viable choice between these two.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward decision for compute workloads: the GTX 465 edges out the Quadro K4100M by 1.6% in OpenCL, a margin that is unlikely to be perceptible in real use. Both cards sit within a narrow band of performance, with the GTX 465 at the 46th percentile and the Quadro at the 41st. Neither part is a clear winner on raw speed.

The Quadro K4100M wins on capacity and compatibility. Its 4 GB memory buffer is four times larger than the GTX 465's 1 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the Fermi card's limit. The Quadro also supports Vulkan, a feature absent from the GTX 465's profile, and its 100 W TDP is half the GTX 465's 200 W draw. The MXM module form factor and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable workstations, while the GTX 465 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a legacy OpenCL workload and do not care about memory capacity or power efficiency, the GTX 465 is marginally faster. For users who need 4 GB of VRAM, Vulkan support, or a low-power mobile solution, the Quadro K4100M is the correct pick despite its slightly lower benchmark score. The GTX 465 wins the single recorded benchmark, but the Quadro wins on every other recorded specification.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | GF100 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce 400 | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 706 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.7 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 352 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 44 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.38 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.75 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 855.4 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 200 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2010-05-30 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 279 USD | 1,499 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9,294 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.6% higher than the Quadro K4100M's 9,149.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 465 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which is not recorded for the GTX 465.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested power supply. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, compared to 352 on the GTX 465. The Quadro also has 96 TMUs versus 44, while both have 32 ROPs.

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

A: They are nearly identical. The GTX 465 delivers 102.7 GB/s, and the Quadro K4100M delivers 102.4 GB/s, both over a 256 bit bus with GDDR5 memory at 3.2 Gbps effective.