NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target very different segments of the market. The GeForce 840M is a slim, power-efficient part built for mainstream laptops, while the Quadro K3100M is a professional workstation GPU designed for certified applications and heavier workloads. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, though the margins are narrower than the hardware specifications might suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to two benchmark tests, and the Quadro K3100M emerges victorious in both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K3100M scores 6154 against the GeForce 840M’s 5764, a delta of -6.3% from the perspective of the 840M. This means the Quadro is roughly 6.3% faster in this compute-oriented test. The margin widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro K3100M posts 5484 versus the GeForce 840M’s 4880, representing an 11% advantage for the professional card.

These results are consistent with the broader benchmark averages. The GeForce 840M carries an average benchmark score of 5322 across all tests, while the Quadro K3100M averages 5154. Interestingly, the GeForce 840M actually has a slightly higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that the Quadro K3100M’s average includes a Geekbench Metal score of 3823, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan results. That Metal score drags down the overall average, whereas the GeForce 840M has no Metal result to weigh against its two stronger scores.

Looking at percentile rankings, both GPUs sit near the bottom of the overall GPU distribution. The GeForce 840M is in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M is in the 30th percentile. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (average score 5161, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, delta -1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, delta -1.6%). The GeForce 840M, by contrast, sits among the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, delta 0.1%), the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, delta 0.3%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, delta -0.7%). Both GPUs are effectively trading blows with their immediate competitors, with all deltas within ±2%.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Quadro K3100M is the faster GPU in raw compute and graphics workloads, winning both head-to-head benchmarks by 6.3% and 11%. Its higher shading unit count (768 vs 384), larger memory bus (256-bit vs 64-bit), and greater memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s) all support this outcome. However, the GeForce 840M is not far behind in average benchmark score, and it actually edges out the Quadro in the aggregate metric (5322 vs 5154) due to the Metal score discrepancy.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark performance, the Quadro K3100M is the clear choice. Its Vulkan score is particularly strong, suggesting better API-level efficiency. For users who need a low-power, integrated-style solution, the GeForce 840M’s 33W TDP versus the Quadro’s 75W TDP makes it the more practical option for thin-and-light laptops. The 840M also has a newer architecture (Maxwell vs Kepler), which may offer better feature support despite the performance deficit.

The Quadro K3100M is the pick for professional workloads and compute-heavy tasks. The GeForce 840M is the pick for everyday use in a power-constrained chassis where benchmark margins are secondary to thermal and battery considerations.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from NVIDIA. The GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts and die sizes differ dramatically. The GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The Quadro K3100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.0 million per mm². The Quadro’s die is nearly four times larger, which explains its higher power draw and the need for a larger MXM module form factor.

The GeForce 840M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, succeeding the GeForce 700M and preceding the GeForce 900M. The Quadro K3100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M and preceding the Quadro Maxwell-M. The 840M is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors, while the Quadro is an MXM module with a slot width of "MXM Module" and a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). The 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The GeForce 840M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Quadro K3100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with no boost headroom. Despite the lower clock, the Quadro’s much larger execution resource pool (768 shading units vs 384) more than compensates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce 840M has a higher average benchmark score of 5322 compared to the Quadro K3100M’s 5154, despite the Quadro winning both head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the GeForce 840M has 16.02 GB/s from DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 5484 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 11% higher than the GeForce 840M’s 4880.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 840M is rated at 33 W, while the Quadro K3100M is rated at 75 W.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, exactly double the GeForce 840M’s 384 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both the GeForce 840M and the Quadro K3100M are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins in every direct benchmark comparison available. Its OpenCL score of 6154 is 6.3% ahead of the GeForce 840M, and its Vulkan score of 5484 is 11% ahead. The Quadro also has superior theoretical throughput: 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the 840M, a 25.6% advantage. Its texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s dwarfs the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s exceeds the 840M’s 8.992 GPixel/s. The Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides vastly more capacity and bandwidth than the 840M’s 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

The GeForce 840M wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the Quadro’s 75 W, making it suitable for IGP-style integration without power connectors. Its Maxwell architecture supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro’s Kepler architecture is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 840M also has a higher average benchmark score (5322 vs 5154), which suggests it may have better driver optimization or workload characteristics in certain non-Vulkan, non-OpenCL tests. Its base clock of 1029 MHz and boost clock of 1124 MHz are significantly higher than the Quadro’s fixed 706 MHz, which helps close the gap in lighter workloads.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GM108S (GeForce 840M) vs GK104 (Quadro K3100M)
• Architecture: Maxwell vs Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 800M vs Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)
• Transistors: 1,020 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 77 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1029 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1124 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 16.02 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 vs 768
• TMUs: 16 vs 64
• ROPs: 8 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 8.992 GPixel/s vs 11.30 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 17.98 GTexel/s vs 45.18 GTexel/s
• FP32: 863.2 GFLOPS vs 1,084.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 33 W vs 75 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Release Date: 2014-03-11 vs 2013-07-22