Quadro FX 580 vs GeForce GTX 460 v2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460 v2 with Quadro FX 580, including specs and performance data.
460 v2 outperforms FX 580 by a whopping 1048% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 677 | 1309 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.89 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 2.34 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 September 2011 (14 years ago) | 9 April 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 460 v2 has 8800% better value for money than FX 580.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 779 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.62 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.046 TFLOPS | 0.072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 32 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.19 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.82 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 24 September 2011 | 9 April 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 460 v2 has a 1047.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
FX 580, on the other hand, has 300% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 460 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 v2 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 580 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
