NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available between these two mobile graphics processors is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A manages 5,317 points. That gives the Quadro a 13.6% advantage over the GeForce in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. The delta is not trivial—it represents a clear performance tier separation, even though both cards occupy similar overall percentile positions in the broader GPU landscape.

Looking at the context from their respective nearest rivals, the GeForce 930A sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,317. Its closest competitor is the GeForce 840M at 5,322 (a -0.1% difference), followed by the GeForce GTX 980M at 5,308 (a 0.2% difference), and the GeForce 940M at 5,284 (a 0.6% difference). The data shows that the 930A is essentially clustered with a group of mid-range mobile parts—the spread among its four nearest rivals is only about 1.4 percentage points. Interestingly, the GeForce GTX 980M—a flagship gaming mobile GPU in its generation—scores nearly identically to the 930A in this OpenCL workload, which suggests that the 930A punches well above its modest feature set in compute tasks.

The Quadro K3100M, meanwhile, sits at the 30th percentile, with an average score of 5,154 across all its benchmarks. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5,211 (-1.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 (-1.6%), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5,063 (+1.8%). The K3100M's average score is dragged down by its performance in other test suites: its Geekbench Metal score is 3,823 and its Vulkan score is 5,484, both lower than its OpenCL result. That variance matters—in the OpenCL test it beats the GeForce 930A by 837 points, but across its full benchmark set, the K3100M's average is actually 163 points lower than the 930A's single OpenCL result.

The head-to-head table confirms the win tally: the Quadro K3100M takes 1 win, the GeForce 930A takes 0. There is no ambiguity in the direct comparison—the Kepler-based professional card is faster in the one shared test. But the broader benchmark picture is more nuanced. The 930A's single OpenCL score of 5,317 exceeds the K3100M's average of 5,154, meaning that if you only look at the one test they share, the Quadro wins, but if you consider the Quadro's full benchmark profile, the GeForce is actually more consistent in its compute output.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different eras of mobile computing. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. The GK104 is a much larger and more complex die: 3,540 million transistors spread across 294 mm², which gives a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro's die is nearly four times larger in area, and it holds over 3.4 times more transistors.

The memory subsystems tell a similarly divergent story. The GeForce 930A ships with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M doubles the capacity to 4 GB, switches to GDDR5, quadruples the bus width to 256-bit, and achieves 102.4 GB/s—a 6.4-fold increase in memory bandwidth. That bandwidth gap is likely the single most important architectural difference for compute-heavy workloads, as OpenCL tasks often saturate memory throughput. Clock speeds favor the GeForce: its base clock is 928 MHz with a boost to 941 MHz, while the Quadro runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GeForce also has faster memory signaling at 2 Gbps effective versus 3.2 Gbps effective for the Quadro, though the Quadro's wider bus more than compensates.

The compute resource allocation is inverted relative to clock speed. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs—all exactly double the GeForce 930A's allotment of 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro's pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s for the GeForce, and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the Quadro produces 1,084.4 GFLOPS against the GeForce's 722.7 GFLOPS—a 50% advantage. Neither chip has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores; both rely on traditional shader-based rendering.

Power and physical form factor differ substantially. The GeForce 930A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 33 W TDP and no power connectors, designed to be soldered directly onto a motherboard. The Quadro K3100M is an MXM Module with a 75 W TDP, also with no power connectors, but it is a replaceable module that slots into a standardized MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both use a PCIe 3.0 connection, though the GeForce uses an x8 interface while the Quadro's MXM-B slot typically provides a full x16 electrical path. Display outputs for both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on whatever the host laptop provides.

API support is nearly identical for DirectX (both support version 12 with 11_0 feature level) and OpenGL (both 4.6), but Vulkan support differs: the GeForce 930A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K3100M is capped at Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro's release date is earlier—July 2013—while the GeForce came later in March 2015. The GeForce's predecessor is the GeForce 800A, and the Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, with the Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split between these two GPUs. If the primary use case is OpenCL compute performance—the only benchmark they share—the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger choice. Its 13.6% lead in that specific test is backed by a substantially wider memory bus (256-bit versus 64-bit), higher bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), double the shading units (768 versus 384), and 50% higher FP32 throughput (1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS). The Quadro also offers twice the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB), which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures.

However, the GeForce 930A is not without advantages. Its average benchmark score across its full profile is 5,317, which is higher than the Quadro's average of 5,154. The Quadro's Metal score of 3,823 is notably weak, suggesting that on platforms using Metal (macOS or certain mobile environments), the Quadro would underperform relative to its OpenCL showing. The GeForce also has a higher clock speed (941 MHz boost versus 706 MHz), a newer architecture (Maxwell versus Kepler), and a dramatically lower power draw (33 W versus 75 W). For thin-and-light laptops or systems with tight thermal budgets, the GeForce is the more practical option.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical—31st for the GeForce, 30th for the Quadro—which indicates that in the broader GPU population, neither card is a standout. They are both mid-low performers by modern standards. But within that range, the Quadro's OpenCL strength and memory bandwidth make it the better choice for professional compute workloads, while the GeForce's efficiency and consistency make it the safer pick for general-purpose mobile use.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930A | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM108 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce 900A | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 928 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.58 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.7 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | None | Quadro Maxwell-M |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.6% higher than the GeForce 930A's 5,317. The Quadro wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GeForce 930A has 16.02 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The Quadro's bandwidth is over six times higher.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GeForce 930A has a 33 W TDP and is an IGP, while the Quadro K3100M has a 75 W TDP and is an MXM module. The GeForce is less than half the power draw.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 with the 11_0 feature level. They also both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GeForce 930A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, exactly double the GeForce 930A's 384. The Quadro also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the GeForce.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GeForce 930A has an average benchmark score of 5,317 (from its single OpenCL test), while the Quadro K3100M averages 5,154 across its three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan). The GeForce's average is 163 points higher.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins for compute-heavy workloads. The 13.6% OpenCL lead is the headline number, but the underlying architecture supports it. With 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, the Quadro is built for parallel throughput. Its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth means that large datasets—common in scientific computing, data analysis, and professional rendering—will not bottleneck as quickly as they would on the GeForce's 16.02 GB/s pipe. The 4 GB VRAM capacity also gives it headroom for larger textures and buffers.

NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins for efficiency and consistency. At 33 W versus 75 W, the GeForce draws less than half the power. Its Maxwell architecture achieves a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm²) and runs at a higher clock speed (941 MHz boost versus 706 MHz). The average benchmark score of 5,317 exceeds the Quadro's 5,154, and the GeForce has no weak sub-scores—it only has one benchmark, and that one is solid. The Quadro's Metal score of 3,823 is a clear weak point that the GeForce does not have to contend with.

The decisive factor is the workload. For users who know they will spend most of their time in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the Quadro K3100M is the data-backed choice. For users who need a lower-power mobile GPU with acceptable compute performance and better Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.175), the GeForce 930A is the more balanced option. Neither card is a performance leader—both sit around the 30th percentile of all GPUs—but they serve different niches within that range. The Quadro is a specialized compute tool with a wider memory path; the GeForce is a general-purpose mobile part that happens to hold its own in OpenCL.