Quadro K2000 vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 768MB
4.36
+6.3%

GTX 460 768MB outperforms Quadro K2000 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking669688
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.37
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameno dataGK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release dateno data1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores336384
Core clock speed675 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,270 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data51 Watt
Texture fill rateno data30.53
Floating-point performanceno data0.7327 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data202 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz4000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 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.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-+
CUDA-3.0

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 HD54
+8%
50−55
−8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

This is how GTX 460 768MB and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 460 768MB is 8% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.36 4.10

GTX 460 768MB has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 460 768MB and Quadro K2000.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 768MB is a desktop card while Quadro K2000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.7 94 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 189 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.