GeForce GTX 460 SE vs Quadro K2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2200 with GeForce GTX 460 SE, including specs and performance data.
Quadro K2200 outperforms GTX 460 SE by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 445 | 584 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.08 | 0.28 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (9 years ago) | 15 November 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.75 | $160 |
| Current price | $313 (0.8x MSRP) | $350 (2.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro K2200 has 1000% better value for money than GTX 460 SE.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 288 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 288 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 104 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 31.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 1,439 gflops | 748.8 gflops |
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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | 8.25" (210 mm) (21 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin & 6-pin |
| SLI options | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 108.8 GB/s |
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.
| Number of display connectors | no data | 2 |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2 x Dual-Link DVI-I1 x Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro K2200 outperforms GeForce GTX 460 SE by 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro K2200 outperforms GeForce GTX 460 SE by 77% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro K2200 outperforms GeForce GTX 460 SE by 69% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 9.19 | 5.18 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 15 November 2010 |
| Cost | $395.75 | $160 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 150 Watt |
The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 460 SE is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
