NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results show a clear winner. The Quadro M2000M scored 10,057 points, while the GTX 460 v2 scored 8,743 points. That is a 15% advantage for the Quadro M2000M, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro M2000M also has a Vulkan score of 9,606, which the GTX 460 v2 cannot match because it lacks Vulkan support entirely. This further widens the functional gap between the two cards in modern API workloads.

In terms of average benchmark score, the Quadro M2000M sits at 9,832, placing it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 460 v2 averages 8,743, which lands in the 44th percentile. The 15% OpenCL delta is consistent with the overall performance ranking.

The Quadro M2000M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (average score 9,846, delta -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, +0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, +0.5%), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724, +1.1%). These are all extremely close scores, meaning the Quadro M2000M sits in a tightly contested performance band where even a 1% shift can change the ranking.

For the GTX 460 v2, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, delta 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, +0.7%), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, -1.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, -1.4%). The GTX 460 v2 is essentially at parity with the RTX 3050 A Mobile, slightly ahead of the Quadro P2200, and slightly behind both AMD Radeon parts.

The head-to-head data shows a single win for the Quadro M2000M and zero wins for the GTX 460 v2. The 15% OpenCL lead is not trivial, but it is also not a dominant blowout. In the context of the nearest rival groups, both cards are competitive with their respective peers, though the Quadro M2000M operates in a higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The Quadro M2000M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, while the GTX 460 v2 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip. This is a generational leap that explains much of the performance difference.

The manufacturing process tells a similar story. The Quadro M2000M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the GTX 460 v2 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the Maxwell chip to pack more transistors into a smaller area. The Quadro M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The GTX 460 v2 has 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9 million per mm². The newer process effectively doubles the density.

The compute resources are structured differently as well. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 460 v2 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Maxwell card has nearly double the shading units, while the Fermi card has more TMUs and ROPs. This explains why the Quadro M2000M achieves a pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s, versus 10.91 GPixel/s and 43.62 GTexel/s for the GTX 460 v2. The pixel rate advantage is substantial, while the texture rate is nearly identical.

Floating-point performance follows the shading unit count. The Quadro M2000M delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1,046.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 460 v2. That is a 39% advantage in raw shader throughput, which is a key metric for compute workloads.

Memory subsystems also differ. The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, delivering 96.19 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the Quadro M2000M's memory runs at 5 Gbps effective, while the GTX 460 v2 runs at 4 Gbps effective. The wider bus on the older card still gives it a bandwidth advantage, but the Quadro M2000M has four times the capacity.

The API support also shows the generational gap. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed. This is a significant differentiator for modern games and compute applications that rely on Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M2000M wins in every measured benchmark category. Its 15% OpenCL lead is the primary head-to-head result, and its Vulkan score of 9,606 is an additional advantage that the GTX 460 v2 cannot contest.

In compute-intensive workloads such as OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or data processing, the Quadro M2000M's higher FP32 throughput (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs 1,046.3 GFLOPS) and greater memory capacity (4 GB vs 1,024 MB) make it the stronger choice. The 640 shading units versus 336 shading units also favor the Maxwell card in parallel workloads.

The GTX 460 v2 does have some theoretical advantages. Its wider 192-bit memory bus provides 96.19 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s, which could help in bandwidth-bound scenarios. Its higher TMU and ROP counts (56 TMUs and 24 ROPs vs 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs) give it more texture filtering and pixel output capacity per clock. However, the benchmark data does not show these translating into a win in any recorded test.

For gaming use, the GTX 460 v2's lack of Vulkan support is a major limitation in modern titles. The Quadro M2000M's Vulkan 1.4 support makes it compatible with contemporary graphics APIs that the Fermi card cannot access. The Quadro M2000M's higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s vs 10.91 GPixel/s) also favors it in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

For professional workstation use, the Quadro M2000M's 4 GB memory capacity is a practical advantage for large textures, complex scenes, and compute buffers. The GTX 460 v2's 1 GB capacity is restrictive for modern professional workloads.

The power envelope heavily favors the Quadro M2000M. It draws 55 W, while the GTX 460 v2 draws 160 W. The Quadro M2000M also requires no power connectors, while the GTX 460 v2 needs two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested power supply. This makes the Maxwell card far more suitable for compact or mobile systems.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro M2000M versus 40 nm for the GTX 460 v2. The transistor count is 1,870 million versus 1,950 million, and the die size is 148 mm² versus 332 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

The Quadro M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz. The GTX 460 v2 has no base or boost clocks listed in the database. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro M2000M and 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 460 v2.

Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 1024 MB. Bus width is 128 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 96.19 GB/s. The shading unit count is 640 versus 336, TMUs are 40 versus 56, and ROPs are 16 versus 24. Pixel rate is 18.19 GPixel/s versus 10.91 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 45.48 GTexel/s versus 43.62 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,046.3 GFLOPS.

Thermal design power is 55 W versus 160 W. The Quadro M2000M uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, while the GTX 460 v2 is a dual-slot card with two 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the Quadro M2000M versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 460 v2 has a physical length of 210 mm (8.3 inches), while the Quadro M2000M has no listed dimensions.

API support differs in Vulkan: the Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The release dates are 2015-12-02 for the Quadro M2000M and 2011-09-23 for the GTX 460 v2. The GTX 460 v2 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the Quadro M2000M has none listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, compared to 8,743 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M2000M scored 10,057 versus 8,743 for the GTX 460 v2, a 15% advantage for the Quadro M2000M.

Q: Does the GTX 460 v2 support Vulkan?

A: No, the GTX 460 v2 has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 460 v2 has a TDP of 160 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a 450 W suggested power supply.

Q: How does memory capacity differ?

A: The Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 460 v2 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro M2000M delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 460 v2 delivers 1,046.3 GFLOPS, a 39% advantage for the Quadro M2000M.