Quadro T1200 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 460 v2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GT 645 OEM GTX 460 SE v2 GTX 460 v2 GTX 460 v2 ES GTX 555 OEM GTX 560 GTX 560 SE GTX 560 Ti GTX 560 Ti OEM GTX 560 Ti X2
VS
Quadro T400 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile Quadro T1000 Mobile Quadro T1000 Max-Q Quadro T1200 Max-Q Quadro T1200 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 v2 with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 v2
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 160 Watt
4.74

T1200 Mobile outperforms GTX 460 v2 by a whopping 301% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GTX 460 v2 GTX 460 v2
T1200 Mobile Quadro T1200

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking647297
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.84no data
Power efficiency2.0874.17
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF114TU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date24 September 2011 (13 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3361024
Core clock speed779 MHz855 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1425 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate43.6291.20
Floating-point processing power1.046 TFLOPS2.918 TFLOPS
ROPs2432
TMUs5664

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.19 GB/s160.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMINo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA2.17.5

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD14−16
−314%
58
+314%
1440p8−9
−313%
33
+313%
4K18−21
−350%
81
+350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.21no data
1440p24.88no data
4K11.06no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 65
+0%
65
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Dota 2 114
+0%
114
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 71
+0%
71
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Far Cry 5 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 109
+0%
109
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how GTX 460 v2 and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T1200 Mobile is 314% faster in 1080p
  • T1200 Mobile is 313% faster in 1440p
  • T1200 Mobile is 350% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 45 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.74 19.01
Recency 24 September 2011 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 18 Watt

T1200 Mobile has a 301.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 788.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 v2 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 v2 is a desktop card while Quadro T1200 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2
GeForce GTX 460 v2
NVIDIA Quadro T1200 Mobile
Quadro T1200
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 460 v2 GeForce GTX 460 v2
vs
GTX 560 SE GeForce GTX 560 SE
T1200 Mobile Quadro T1200 Mobile
vs
Pro 580X Radeon Pro 580X
GTX 460 v2 GeForce GTX 460 v2
vs
RX 570X Radeon RX 570X
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
RX 5500 OEM 5500 OEM
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
Apple M1 7-Core GPU Core GPU
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
RX 6600 XT 6600 XT
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA 460 v2
vs
RTX 3090 Ti 3090 Ti
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
RTX A5500 A5500
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
Arc Pro A30M A30M
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
Radeon 740M 740M
GTX 460 v2 NVIDIA GTX 460 v2
vs
PRO W7700 W7700

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4 19 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 146 votes

Rate Quadro T1200 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 460 v2 or Quadro T1200 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.