NVIDIA GeForce 920MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA GeForce 920MX are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different NVIDIA product families. The recorded data shows a clear overall winner, but the choice depends on whether the workload favors raw compute throughput or power efficiency. The Quadro K2100M leads in both shared benchmark tests, with a 12.8% advantage in OpenCL and a 45.4% advantage in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4151 sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the GeForce 920MX averages 3528, landing at the 21st percentile. For users who prioritize compute performance, the Quadro K2100M is the stronger pick. For users who need a lower power draw and a smaller die, the GeForce 920MX has its place, but the data shows it trails in every measured workload.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Quadro K2100M wins both head-to-head tests, taking 2 wins to 0. In OpenCL, the Quadro scores 4587 against the GeForce’s 4068, a 12.8% lead. In Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 4343 versus 2987, a 45.4% advantage. The average benchmark score reinforces this, with the Quadro at 4151 compared to 3528 for the GeForce, a difference of 623 points. The percentile ranking also favors the Quadro, sitting at the 25th percentile versus the GeForce’s 21st.

Who should pick the Quadro K2100M? Any user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, since it wins both. The 45.4% Vulkan margin is particularly large, indicating a significant architectural advantage in that API. The Quadro also carries more shading units (576 vs 256), more texture mapping units (48 vs 24), and more ROPs (16 vs 8), which aligns with its higher compute scores.

Who should pick the GeForce 920MX? The data does not show a single benchmark win. Its only advantages are a lower TDP (16 W vs 55 W) and a smaller die (77 mm² vs 221 mm²). For a system where power draw is the limiting factor, the GeForce is the only rational choice. But for performance, the Quadro is ahead in every recorded test. The GeForce’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 545 (avg 3594, delta -1.8%) and the Quadro 2000M (avg 3434, delta 2.7%), indicating it sits in a lower performance band. The Quadro’s rivals include the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg 4193, delta -1%), placing it closer to mainstream desktop parts.

The verdict is conditional. For compute-heavy tasks, the Quadro K2100M is the clear winner. For power-constrained designs, the GeForce 920MX offers a 39 W lower TDP, but at a substantial performance cost.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectures and generations. The Quadro K2100M uses the Kepler architecture, built on the GK106S chip, with a 28 nm process from TSMC. It packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The GeForce 920MX uses the Maxwell architecture, built on the GM108S chip, also on a 28 nm process from TSMC. It has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a higher transistor density of 13.2 million per mm².

The core configurations differ sharply. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce has 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is 2.25 times the shading units, 2 times the TMUs, and 2 times the ROPs for the Quadro. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Quadro runs at 667 MHz base and boost, while the GeForce runs at 965 MHz base and 993 MHz boost. The GeForce’s higher clocks partially offset its fewer cores, but not enough to overcome the Quadro’s raw resource advantage.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 3.34 times bandwidth advantage for the Quadro. Memory clock speeds reflect this: the Quadro’s memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GeForce’s runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GeForce’s higher raw memory clock cannot compensate for the narrower bus and slower memory type.

API support shows a minor difference. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GeForce supports Vulkan 1.4. The GeForce’s newer Vulkan version does not help in practice, as its Vulkan score is much lower.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GeForce uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2100M wins in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 768.4 GFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS for the GeForce, a 51% advantage. Pixel rate is nearly identical (8.004 GPixel/s vs 7.944 GPixel/s), but texture rate favors the Quadro at 32.02 GTexel/s versus 23.83 GTexel/s, a 34% lead. These numbers explain the benchmark results: the Quadro’s higher fill rates and compute capacity translate into higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

The GeForce 920MX wins in power efficiency. Its TDP is 16 W versus 55 W for the Quadro, a 39 W difference. The GeForce also has a much smaller die (77 mm² vs 221 mm²), which suggests lower manufacturing cost and potentially better thermal behavior in thin laptops. Its transistor density is higher (13.2M / mm² vs 11.5M / mm²), indicating a more efficient use of silicon area. However, this efficiency does not produce a benchmark win.

In terms of release timing, the GeForce is newer, released in 2016 versus 2013 for the Quadro. The GeForce’s successor is GeForce 10 Mobile, while the Quadro’s successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP in the database.

Use-case split: the Quadro is for tasks that stress shader throughput, texture filtering, and memory bandwidth, such as OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering. The GeForce is for systems where a 16 W TDP is mandatory, such as ultraportable notebooks, and where the user accepts lower compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, with an average score of 4151 compared to 3528 for the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Quadro K2100M scores 4343 in Vulkan, while the GeForce 920MX scores 2987, giving the Quadro a 45.4% advantage.

Q: Does the GeForce 920MX win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head results, the Quadro K2100M wins both OpenCL (4587 vs 4068) and Vulkan (4343 vs 2987).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce 920MX has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The GeForce 920MX, with a TDP of 16 W, compared to 55 W for the Quadro K2100M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, more than double the 256 shading units of the GeForce 920MX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K2100M wins both.

In OpenCL, the Quadro scores 4587 against the GeForce’s 4068. The delta is 12.8%. This is a moderate lead, consistent with the Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput (768.4 GFLOPS vs 508.4 GFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (48.13 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s). The GeForce’s higher clock speed (993 MHz boost vs 667 MHz) helps it close some of the gap, but not enough.

In Vulkan, the Quadro scores 4343 against the GeForce’s 2987. The delta is 45.4%. This is a decisive win. The Vulkan test appears to stress memory bandwidth and shader count more heavily, both of which favor the Quadro. The GeForce’s DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus becomes a bottleneck, while the Quadro’s GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides nearly 3.3 times the bandwidth. The GeForce’s newer Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.2.175) does not translate into better performance.

The average benchmark scores align with these results. The Quadro’s average of 4151 is 17.7% higher than the GeForce’s 3528. The Quadro’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M330, scores 4170 with a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Quadro is essentially tied with it. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193 (delta -1%), so the Quadro is within 1% of that desktop-class card. The GeForce 920MX’s nearest rival, the GeForce GT 545, scores 3594 (delta -1.8%), and the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation scores 3596 (delta -1.9%). The GeForce 920MX sits just below these parts.

The percentile rankings reflect the overall landscape. The Quadro is at the 25th percentile, meaning it outperforms 25% of all GPUs in the database. The GeForce is at the 21st percentile. The 4-percentile gap is modest, but the benchmark deltas are not.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK106S (Quadro) vs GM108S (GeForce)
• Architecture: Kepler vs Maxwell
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) vs GeForce 900M
• Transistors: 2,540 million vs 1,020 million
• Die Size: 221 mm² vs 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 11.5M / mm² vs 13.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 667 MHz vs 965 MHz
• Boost Clock: 667 MHz vs 993 MHz
• Memory Clock: 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 48.13 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 576 vs 256
• Texture Mapping Units: 48 vs 24
• Raster Output Units: 16 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 8.004 GPixel/s vs 7.944 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 32.02 GTexel/s vs 23.83 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 768.4 GFLOPS vs 508.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W vs 16 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.175 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2013-07-22 vs 2016-03-24
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M vs GeForce 800M
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M vs GeForce 10 Mobile

Both have 2 GB memory, 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, no power connectors, MXM module slot width, portable-device-dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no RT or tensor cores. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The specification table shows a trade-off: the Quadro offers far more compute resources and bandwidth, while the GeForce offers lower power draw and a smaller die. The benchmark data confirms that the Quadro’s resource advantage wins out in practice.