AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and AMD Radeon RX 560 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive victory for the AMD part, which outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro in every shared benchmark by a wide margin, though the Quadro’s role as a professional mobile solution means its strengths lie in legacy compatibility and low power draw. Benchmark results indicate that the RX 560 is the superior performer for any modern workload, while the K2100M remains a functional, if dated, option for older professional applications.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 560 is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance and modern API support. The head-to-head data shows the RX 560 winning both Geekbench tests with a deltaPct of -81.4% in Metal and -72.2% in OpenCL, meaning the AMD card’s scores are roughly 4.4x and 2.6x higher, respectively. Its average benchmark score of 4569 places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2100M sits at 4151 in the 25th percentile. The RX 560 also offers double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) and over twice the memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 48.13 GB/s), making it far more capable for texture-heavy or high-resolution tasks.

For users constrained by power or form factor, the Quadro K2100M has a niche. Its 55 W TDP is lower than the RX 560’s 75 W, and its MXM Module slot width makes it a drop-in replacement for specific laptop chassis. The data shows it supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, which covers older titles and professional OpenGL applications. However, its 576 shading units and 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance are dwarfed by the RX 560’s 1024 shading units and 2.611 TFLOPS. The verdict is simple: the RX 560 for performance, the K2100M only for legacy hardware compatibility where its low power draw and MXM form factor are mandatory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569 on average, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 4151. The RX 560 also holds a 26th percentile rank versus the Quadro’s 25th, indicating it sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K2100M features 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 doubles capacity to 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but more than doubles bandwidth to 112.0 GB/s, offering a clear advantage in memory-intensive workloads.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The Quadro K2100M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture (GK106S chip) built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The RX 560 uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture (Polaris 21 chip) on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, packing 3,000 million transistors into a smaller 123 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 24.4M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm².

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card has a more modern feature set, particularly in Vulkan and DirectX 12, which the data shows via its higher Vulkan support version.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a 55 W TDP, while the RX 560 has a 75 W TDP. The RX 560 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the Quadro has no suggested PSU, though its lower power draw makes it suitable for thin-and-light designs.

Q: What are the physical dimensions and connectivity options?

A: The Quadro K2100M is an MXM Module with no dedicated power connectors and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The RX 560 is a Dual-slot card measuring 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length, with no power connectors, a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The Quadro K2100M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, a design from the 28 nm era fabricated by TSMC. Its GK106S chip contains 2,540 million transistors across a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². This older design uses a fixed 667 MHz clock for both base and boost, which limits its peak throughput. The RX 560, by contrast, is AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. The Polaris 21 chip packs 3,000 million transistors into a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.4M / mm² — a 113% improvement in density. This allows the RX 560 to run at much higher clocks, with a base of 1175 MHz and a boost of 1275 MHz.

Core configuration also skews heavily toward the AMD part. The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560 nearly doubles the shading units to 1024, increases TMUs to 64, and keeps 16 ROPs. This translates into a massive throughput advantage: the RX 560’s pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s versus 32.02 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS, while the Quadro manages just 768.4 GFLOPS — a 3.4x difference. The RX 560 also supports FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 capability listed.

The manufacturing and feature differences are equally pronounced. The RX 560’s 14 nm process allows for higher clock speeds and efficiency, while the Quadro’s 28 nm node is a generation behind. The RX 560 supports PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface — a mobile-specific standard. Display connectivity differs too: the Quadro’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop, while the RX 560 offers fixed outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). The RX 560 also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K2100M has a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the RX 560 uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 2,540 million for the Quadro versus 3,000 million for the RX 560, but the die size is 221 mm² for the Quadro and 123 mm² for the RX 560, giving the AMD part a density of 24.4M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm². Clock speeds are starkly different: the Quadro runs at 667 MHz base and boost, while the RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the RX 560.

Memory capacity is 2 GB for the Quadro and 4 GB for the RX 560, both GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 48.13 GB/s for the Quadro and 112.0 GB/s for the RX 560. The shading unit count is 576 for the Quadro and 1024 for the RX 560; TMUs are 48 vs 64; ROPs are 16 for both. Pixel rate is 8.004 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 20.40 GPixel/s for the RX 560. Texture rate is 32.02 GTexel/s vs 81.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 768.4 GFLOPS vs 2.611 TFLOPS, and the RX 560 adds FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) while the Quadro has none. TDP is 55 W for the Quadro and 75 W for the RX 560. The Quadro is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the RX 560 is a Dual-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 560. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro, versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 560. The Quadro measures no listed length, while the RX 560 is 170 mm (6.7 inches). API support shows the Quadro at DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175; the RX 560 at DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Release dates are 2013-07-22 for the Quadro and 2017-04-17 for the RX 560. The RX 560 has a launch MSRP of 99 USD. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M; the RX 560’s predecessor is Arctic Islands and successor is Vega.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite is limited to two Geekbench tests, and the RX 560 wins both decisively. In Geekbench Metal, the Quadro K2100M scores 3524, while the RX 560 scores 18941 — a deltaPct of -81.4% from the winner’s perspective, meaning the Quadro’s score is only about 18.6% of the RX 560’s. This is a 5.4x performance gap, reflecting the RX 560’s modern architecture and higher compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 4587 versus the RX 560’s 16472, a deltaPct of -72.2%, which translates to a 3.6x advantage for the AMD card. The wins tally is 2 for the RX 560 and 0 for the Quadro.

Interpreting these results, the RX 560’s Metal score of 18941 is close to its OpenCL score of 16472, suggesting balanced compute performance across APIs. The Quadro’s OpenCL score of 4587 is higher than its Metal score of 3524, indicating a relative strength in OpenCL workloads, though still far behind the RX 560. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the RX 560’s 4569 average is 10% higher than the Quadro’s 4151, despite the Quadro having a higher OpenCL score than its average, which suggests the Quadro’s other benchmarks (if any) drag its average down. The percentile ranks are close (26th vs 25th), but the RX 560’s raw scores in the shared tests are in a different league.

The nearest rival data puts these scores in context. The Quadro’s average of 4151 sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon R5 M330’s 4170 and 1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s 4193, while it is 1.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB’s 4093 and 1.9% above the Intel HD Graphics 630’s 4075. The RX 560’s average of 4569 is 0.2% below the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s 4577, 0.2% above the Intel HD Graphics P530’s 4560, 1.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M’s 4621, and 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M’s 4628. This shows the RX 560 clustering with mid-range mobile GPUs of its era, while the Quadro K2100M sits among entry-level integrated and low-end discrete parts. The data is unambiguous: the RX 560 is the stronger GPU by every measured metric.