NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA GeForce 830M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target very different corners of the laptop market. The data shows a clear, if narrow, aggregate winner: the Quadro K2100M averages 4151 across its benchmark suite, edging out the GeForce 830M’s 3957 average by roughly 4.9%. However, the GeForce 830M is not without merit; it posts a higher pixel rate and a more modern feature set in some API areas. The choice between them depends on whether the priority is raw compute throughput (favoring the K2100M) or efficiency and specific API support (favoring the 830M). The Quadro’s 21% lead in Vulkan is the single largest performance gap, while the GeForce 830M’s lower power draw and smaller die make it a more practical fit for thin-and-light designs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward verdict for most users: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the faster GPU overall, winning both head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 4151 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 830M sits just behind at 3957 and the 24th percentile. The Quadro’s wins are decisive in specific workloads—6.1% in OpenCL and a substantial 21% in Vulkan—making it the superior choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulations, or any application leveraging Vulkan. The data suggests the Quadro K2100M is the pick for users who need maximum computational throughput in a mobile workstation.

Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the more logical pick for a different set of priorities. It consumes less power (33 W vs. 55 W TDP) and operates at significantly higher clocks (1082 MHz base, 1150 MHz boost vs. a flat 667 MHz). While it loses in raw compute, its higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs. 8.004 GPixel/s) indicates better fill-rate performance for certain rasterization tasks. The 830M is the better fit for a general-purpose consumer laptop where battery life and thermals matter more than peak compute, and where the Vulkan 1.4 API support (versus 1.2.175 on the Quadro) could offer future compatibility advantages. For professional workloads and maximum performance, choose the Quadro K2100M; for everyday use with an efficiency bias, the GeForce 830M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, which is 4.9% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s average of 3957. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile rank (25th) compared to the 830M (24th).

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro K2100M scores 4343 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce 830M scores 3590. This represents a 21% advantage for the Quadro, which is the largest delta between the two in any shared test.

Q: Is the GeForce 830M more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The GeForce 830M has a TDP of 33 W, whereas the Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W. This 22 W difference suggests the 830M is better suited for systems where power draw and heat dissipation are critical constraints.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, they differ in Vulkan support: the GeForce 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K2100M supports the older Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The Quadro K2100M uses a larger and more complex chip: 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The GeForce 830M is much smaller, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This makes the 830M’s transistor density higher (13.2M / mm² vs. 11.5M / mm²).

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K2100M offers 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 interface. The GeForce 830M has only 14.40 GB/s, using a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The Quadro’s bandwidth advantage is substantial, at over 3.3 times that of the 830M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK106S), while the GeForce 830M uses the newer Maxwell architecture (chip GM108). Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The Kepler chip is physically much larger, with a die size of 221 mm² and 2,540 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². In contrast, the Maxwell chip is a compact 77 mm² die with 1,020 million transistors, achieving a higher density of 13.2 million per mm². This suggests Maxwell is a more refined design, packing more logic per area despite fewer total transistors.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro K2100M employs 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. This is a massive difference in memory throughput, likely impacting any memory-bound workload. In terms of compute resources, the Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GeForce 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro’s hardware is clearly built for higher throughput, whereas the 830M’s design prioritizes efficiency and lower power consumption.

Feature support also diverges. The GeForce 830M supports the Vulkan 1.4 API, while the Quadro K2100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The production status is end-of-life for both, but their lineage differs: the Quadro K2100M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GeForce 830M follows GeForce 700M and leads to GeForce 900M.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a clear split between the two. The Quadro K2100M has a base and boost clock of 667 MHz, a very conservative clock speed. The GeForce 830M runs much faster, with a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro’s GDDR5 runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the 830M’s DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The memory bus width is 128-bit for the Quadro and 64-bit for the 830M, directly contributing to the bandwidth gap (48.13 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s).

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the 830M. This results in a higher texture rate (32.02 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s) and FP32 performance (768.4 GFLOPS vs. 588.8 GFLOPS) for the Quadro. However, the 830M has a higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs. 8.004 GPixel/s), implying better efficiency in pixel fill operations.

Power and form factor differ significantly. The Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM Module slot (MXM-A 3.0 interface). The GeForce 830M has a TDP of 33 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Neither uses power connectors, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro was released on 2013-07-22, while the GeForce 830M came later on 2014-03-11.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two shared tests, and the Quadro K2100M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 4587 against the GeForce 830M’s 4324, a 6.1% advantage. This is a modest but clear win, reflecting the Quadro’s greater shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The OpenCL result is close enough that real-world differences might be small, but the data consistently favors the Quadro.

The more striking result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro K2100M scores 4343 versus the GeForce 830M’s 3590. This is a 21% gap, the largest in any comparison. The Vulkan test likely stresses driver overhead and complex scene rendering, where the Quadro’s more robust hardware resources and higher bandwidth provide a decisive edge. Interestingly, the GeForce 830M supports a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 vs. 1.2.175), yet this does not translate into a performance win—the older hardware of the Quadro simply outmuscles it.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro’s average score of 4151 is within 1% of its rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg score 4193, deltaPct -1), and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (avg score 4075). The GeForce 830M’s average of 3957 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct 0) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, deltaPct 0.1). These relative positions suggest the Quadro sits in a slightly higher performance tier, while the 830M competes with older mid-range mobile parts.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in every benchmark category where both are tested. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy and API-specific workloads. The 21% Vulkan lead makes it the clear choice for applications that leverage this API, such as modern game engines or Vulkan-based compute frameworks. The 6.1% OpenCL advantage reinforces its suitability for general-purpose GPU computing, including video encoding, physics simulations, and data processing. The Quadro’s 48.13 GB/s memory bandwidth and 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance provide a solid foundation for these tasks. It is the winner for professional mobile workstations, CAD, scientific analysis, or any scenario where raw compute throughput is paramount.

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins in the areas of efficiency and specific rasterization metrics. Its 33 W TDP is 22 W lower than the Quadro’s, making it a better fit for slim laptops where cooling is limited. While it loses on texture rate (18.40 GTexel/s vs. 32.02 GTexel/s) and FP32 (588.8 GFLOPS vs. 768.4 GFLOPS), its higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs. 8.004 GPixel/s) suggests it may handle simple pixel-fill operations more quickly. The 830M also supports a newer Vulkan API version (1.4), which could be a compatibility advantage for future software despite its current performance deficit. For a consumer laptop focused on everyday tasks, light gaming at lower resolutions, and battery longevity, the GeForce 830M is the more practical choice. The data shows the Quadro is the performance king, but the 830M is the efficiency-oriented alternative.