NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 represent two very different approaches to GPU design from the same manufacturer, separated by a year of architectural evolution and aimed at entirely different use cases. The database contains one common benchmark result for both cards, the Geekbench OpenCL test, which provides a clear numerical basis for comparison. The Quadro K5000 scored 11,418 points, while the GTX 460 v2 scored 8,743 points. This gives the Quadro K5000 a 30.6% advantage in raw compute throughput. Beyond this single head-to-head test, the two cards diverge sharply in memory capacity, power requirements, and their surrounding ecosystem of specifications, making this comparison less about a simple winner and more about understanding what each architecture prioritized.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL workload, which exercises general-purpose compute performance across the GPU's shading units. The Quadro K5000 finished with 11,418 points, a substantial margin over the GTX 460 v2's 8,743 points. The performance gap of 30.6% is significant, but it is worth questioning what drives this difference. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip built on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip on a 40 nm process. The newer manufacturing node allows the Quadro to pack more transistors into a smaller die, and the raw numbers tell that story clearly.

The Quadro K5000 carries 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die. That means the Quadro achieves a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter, versus 5.9 million for the GTX 460 v2. The density advantage is more than double, which explains how the Quadro can house 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GTX 460 v2 must make do with 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro has roughly 4.6 times the shading units and 2.3 times the TMUs, which translates directly into higher theoretical fill rates. The Quadro's pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s for the GTX 460 v2, and its texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s.

The floating-point performance numbers reinforce this pattern. The Quadro K5000 delivers 2.169 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 460 v2 offers 1,046.3 GFLOPS, essentially half. The OpenCL score difference of 30.6% is actually smaller than the peak FP32 difference, which suggests that the benchmark may be limited by other factors such as memory bandwidth or driver overhead rather than pure compute saturation. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the GTX 460 v2's 192-bit bus, and its memory runs at a higher effective speed, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth against 96.19 GB/s. That is a 79.6% bandwidth advantage, yet the OpenCL score only shows a 30.6% gap, indicating that the workload may not be bandwidth-bound.

Another point worth investigating is the clock speed behavior. The Quadro K5000 lists a base clock of 706 MHz and a boost clock of 706 MHz, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency with no dynamic range. The GTX 460 v2 does not list a base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The absence of core clock data for the GTX 460 v2 makes it harder to assess its per-clock efficiency, but the fact that it achieves its compute results with far fewer cores at a similar memory frequency suggests that the Fermi 2.0 architecture was competitive in its era, just outclassed by the later Kepler design.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 than the GeForce GTX 460 v2 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K5000 scored 11,418 points in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the GTX 460 v2 scored 8,743 points. The Quadro is 30.6% ahead.

Q: Which card has more memory and why does that matter?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The Quadro's memory bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s compared to 96.19 GB/s for the GTX 460 v2, which helps with large datasets typical of professional workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W and needs two 6-pin connectors with a suggested 450 W power supply. The newer card actually draws less power despite delivering higher performance.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support Vulkan?

A: No. The GTX 460 v2 lists no Vulkan support in the database, while the Quadro K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do these cards compare to other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 9,637, and its closest rivals include the GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653, and the Quadro P4000 at 9,665. The GTX 460 v2 sits at the 44th percentile with an average score of 8,743, near the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 and the Quadro P2200 at 8,686.

Q: Which card was released later?

A: The Quadro K5000 was released on 2012-08-16, while the GTX 460 v2 was released on 2011-09-23. The Quadro is the newer product by roughly 11 months.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy, but the intended use case matters more than the raw numbers. The Quadro K5000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 30.6%, and it leads decisively in every compute metric recorded: shading units, texture units, ROPs, FP32 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, memory size, and memory bandwidth. It also does so while consuming less power, with a TDP of 122 W against the GTX 460 v2's 160 W, and with a smaller power supply recommendation of 300 W versus 450 W. The Quadro is more efficient on every level, which is remarkable given its much larger transistor count.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life cards today, the Quadro K5000 is the superior choice for any workload that stresses compute or memory capacity. Its 4 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the GTX 460 v2's 1 GB, which matters for rendering scenes with high-resolution textures or for compute tasks that need to hold large working sets in VRAM. The GTX 460 v2, by contrast, has no advantage in any measured category. It does not win a single benchmark, it has fewer cores, less memory, less bandwidth, and it draws more power. The only reason to select it would be if a system cannot physically accommodate the Quadro, since the Quadro is 267 mm long while the GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm long. That 57 mm difference could rule out smaller cases.

The percentile rankings reinforce this verdict. The Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460 v2 sits at the 44th percentile. The gap looks small in percentile terms, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story: 9,637 for the Quadro versus 8,743 for the GTX 460 v2. The Quadro's nearest rivals are all within a fraction of a percent of its score, with the GTX 960M at -0.1%, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at -0.2%, and the Quadro P4000 at -0.3%. This suggests the Quadro sits in a dense cluster of mid-range performers. The GTX 460 v2, meanwhile, has rivals spread both above and below, with the RTX 3050 A Mobile at parity, the Quadro P2200 at +0.7% for the GTX 460 v2, and the Radeon R9 M265X at -1.2%. The GTX 460 v2 is not dramatically worse than its immediate peers, but it is in a lower performance tier entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip, while the GTX 460 v2 uses the GF114 chip. The process node differs, with the Quadro on 28 nm and the GTX 460 v2 on 40 nm. Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 1,950 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 332 mm². The smaller die with more transistors gives the Quadro a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 460 v2 manages only 5.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 96.19 GB/s. The memory clock is recorded as 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective for the Quadro, versus 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective for the GTX 460 v2.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The Quadro has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro's pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s. The GTX 460 v2 achieves 10.91 GPixel/s and 43.62 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.169 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2.

The power profiles also diverge. The Quadro has a TDP of 122 W with one 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W with two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions differ as well: the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the GTX 460 v2 is 210 mm long with no height recorded. Both are dual-slot cards with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Display outputs are another difference. The Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 460 v2 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL, with both at 12 (11_0) and 4.6 respectively, but the Quadro adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support while the GTX 460 v2 has none recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is fundamental. The Quadro K5000 is built on the Kepler architecture, which NVIDIA designed for higher efficiency per watt and per transistor. The GTX 460 v2 uses Fermi 2.0, an evolution of the original Fermi design that was already a generation old by the time the Quadro shipped. The generations are labeled differently in the database: the Quadro belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, while the GTX 460 v2 belongs to the GeForce 400 generation.

The manufacturing process separates them further. The Quadro uses TSMC's 28 nm node, while the GTX 460 v2 uses TSMC's 40 nm node. This process shrink is the primary enabler for the Quadro's higher transistor count and density. The Quadro crams 3,540 million transistors into 294 mm², a density of 12.0M per mm². The GTX 460 v2 spreads 1,950 million transistors across 332 mm², a density of only 5.9M per mm². That density difference is the root cause of the performance gap, as it allows the Kepler design to deploy far more execution units within the same thermal and power envelope.

The core configuration reflects this architectural shift. Kepler moved to a design with more, smaller cores that could be clocked efficiently, while Fermi 2.0 used fewer, larger cores. The Quadro's 1,536 shading units versus the GTX 460 v2's 336 represents a 4.6x increase in compute lanes. The TMU count of 128 versus 56 is a 2.3x increase, and the ROP count of 32 versus 24 is a modest 1.3x increase. The smaller ROP scaling suggests that memory bandwidth, not pixel output, was the bottleneck the Quadro was designed to address, which is consistent with its professional market positioning where large datasets and complex shaders dominate.

The release cadence also matters. The GTX 460 v2 launched on 2011-09-23, and its predecessor is listed as GeForce 200 with a successor of GeForce 500. The Quadro K5000 launched on 2012-08-16, with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and a successor of Quadro Maxwell. The Quadro's architecture is effectively one full generation newer, which explains why it achieves higher performance with lower power consumption, a combination that was the hallmark of the Kepler generation.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It has the only Vulkan support, the higher OpenCL score, the larger memory pool, and the higher bandwidth. Its 30.6% lead in OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute workloads that can leverage general-purpose GPU processing. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for tasks involving large textures, complex scenes, or scientific datasets that exceed the 1 GB and 96.19 GB/s limits of the GTX 460 v2.

The GTX 460 v2 has no benchmark wins, but it does have a few practical advantages that are not captured by performance scores. Its shorter length of 210 mm versus 267 mm makes it easier to fit in compact cases. It requires no DisplayPort connectivity, instead offering a mini-HDMI 1.3a output alongside two DVI ports, which may match older display setups more directly. It also has a lower launch MSRP of 199 USD compared to the Quadro's 2,499 USD, though the database records the Quadro's launch price and the GTX 460 v2's launch price without comment on current market value.

For a user with a constrained power budget, the Quadro is actually the better choice despite being the higher-end product, since its 122 W TDP is lower than the GTX 460 v2's 160 W. The Quadro also needs only one 6-pin connector versus two for the GTX 460 v2, and its suggested PSU of 300 W is well below the 450 W recommended for the older card. The efficiency gains from the 28 nm process are substantial.

For a user with a constrained physical space budget, the GTX 460 v2 wins on length alone. For a user with a legacy display setup that relies on HDMI rather than DisplayPort, the GTX 460 v2's mini-HDMI port could be more convenient. For a user who needs Vulkan support, the Quadro is the only option. For a user who needs maximum compute performance, the Quadro wins outright. The only sensible choice for modern workloads is the Quadro K5000, assuming the chassis can accommodate its longer PCB. The GTX 460 v2 is a relic of a different era, and the database records no scenario where it outperforms its younger sibling.