GeForce GTX 460 v2 vs Quadro K4000M

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro K4000M

#26

Radeon Pro Vega 48

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

97%

#27

Radeon Pro 5700 XT

MSRP: $500|Avg: $280

97%

#28

Quadro P5200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $240

90%

#29

Radeon PRO W7700

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

90%

#30

Radeon PRO W6600

MSRP: $649|Avg: $649

89%

#32

Radeon AI PRO R9700

MSRP: $1299|Avg: $1450

85%

#42

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

573%

#57

Quadro K4000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#58

Quadro K2000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

97%

#60

Intel Arc Pro A60

MSRP: $380|Avg: $380

97%

#63

T400 4GB

MSRP: $159|Avg: $99

93%

#64

Radeon Pro 5300

MSRP: $300|Avg: $150

92%

#69

Radeon Pro W5500

MSRP: $399|Avg: $300

87%

#72

Quadro P2200

MSRP: $429|Avg: $227

85%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro K4000M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.2% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 460 v2.

Insight	GeForce GTX 460 v2	Quadro K4000M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+300%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro K4000M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 460 v2 Benchmark Check

Quadro K4000M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 460 v2 and Quadro K4000M

GeForce GTX 460 v2

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 24 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 779 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,016 points. Launch price was $199.

Quadro K4000M

The Quadro K4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 601 MHz. It has 960 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,061 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 2,016 and the Quadro K4000M reaches 2,061 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 460 v2 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the Quadro K4000M uses Kepler, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce GTX 460 v2) vs 960 (Quadro K4000M). Raw compute: 1.046 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 460 v2) vs 1.154 TFLOPS (Quadro K4000M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 v2	Quadro K4000M
G3D Mark Score	2,016	2,061+2%
Architecture	Fermi 2.0	Kepler
Process Node	40 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	336	960+186%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.046 TFLOPS	1.154 TFLOPS+10%
ROPs	24	32+33%
TMUs	56	80+43%
L1 Cache	448 KB+460%	80 KB
L2 Cache	384 KB	512 KB+33%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 v2	Quadro K4000M
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K4000M has 4 GB. The Quadro K4000M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 384 KB (GeForce GTX 460 v2) vs 512 KB (Quadro K4000M) — the Quadro K4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 460 v2	Quadro K4000M
VRAM Capacity	1 GB	4 GB+300%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	384 KB	512 KB+33%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 draws 160W versus the Quadro K4000M's 100W — a 46.2% difference. The Quadro K4000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 450W (GeForce GTX 460 v2) vs 350W (Quadro K4000M). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.