NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The data shows a close generational clash between two end-of-life NVIDIA mobile GPUs: the GeForce 930M and the Quadro K2100M. The 930M, built on Maxwell, wins one of two head-to-head benchmarks, while the Quadro K2100M, built on Kepler, takes the other. Overall average scores are within 5.4% of each other, making this a matchup decided by workload rather than outright dominance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their direct benchmark comparisons exactly, with each taking one victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 930M posts a score of 5046 against the Quadro K2100M’s 4587, a 10% advantage. This is the 930M’s strongest showing, and it aligns with its higher average benchmark score of 4388 versus the K2100M’s 4151. The 930M also sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, one point above the K2100M’s 25th percentile, confirming a slim but consistent edge in raw compute throughput.

The Quadro K2100M strikes back decisively in the Geekbench Vulkan test. There, it scores 4343 against the 930M’s 3729, a 14.1% margin. This is a substantial reversal, suggesting the K2100M’s architecture handles the Vulkan API’s lower-level overhead more efficiently. The delta is larger than the OpenCL gap, meaning the K2100M’s win is more pronounced than the 930M’s. In terms of nearest rivals, the 930M’s average score of 4388 places it 0.5% behind the GeForce GT 645M (4411) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360). The K2100M’s 4151 average is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170) and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075). Notably, the 930M’s OpenCL score of 5046 is higher than any of its listed rivals’ averages, while the K2100M’s Vulkan score of 4343 similarly exceeds its rivals’ averages.

The benchmark data suggests a trade-off: the 930M is better suited for OpenCL compute workloads, while the K2100M excels in Vulkan-based tasks. For users prioritizing one API over the other, this is the deciding factor. The wins are not marginal either—10% and 14.1% are meaningful gaps in mobile GPUs of this class. Both parts are old enough that absolute performance is modest, but the relative difference between them is clear.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M, with an average benchmark score of 4388, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 4151. This is a 5.7% difference in the 930M’s favor.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce 930M wins with a score of 5046 against the Quadro K2100M’s 4587, a 10% advantage. This is the 930M’s only head-to-head win.

Q: What about the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro K2100M wins decisively, scoring 4343 versus the GeForce 930M’s 3729. That is a 14.1% margin, which is larger than the 930M’s OpenCL lead.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the GeForce 930M, the nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 645M (4411, -0.5%), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, +0.7%), GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, +1.2%), and AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, +2.2%). For the Quadro K2100M, they are the Radeon R5 M330 (4170, -0.4%), GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, -1%), Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, +1.4%), and Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, +1.9%).

Q: Which GPU has the better percentile ranking?

A: The GeForce 930M holds the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2100M sits at the 25th percentile. The difference is one percentile point.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different chip designs. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip built on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there. The GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The GK106S is a much larger chip: 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, with a lower density of 11.5 million per square millimeter.

The transistor count difference is stark—the K2100M has roughly 2.5 times as many transistors as the 930M—but the 930M compensates with a denser layout. In terms of execution resources, the Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The GeForce 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That means the K2100M offers 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. The K2100M also has higher clocks: 667 MHz base and boost, versus 549 MHz for the 930M.

These architectural differences translate directly to throughput. The K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 32.02 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 8.004 GPixel/s of pixel fill. The 930M delivers 421.6 GFLOPS, 13.18 GTexel/s, and 4.392 GPixel/s. In every raw throughput metric, the K2100M is ahead: 82% higher FP32, 143% higher texture rate, and 82% higher pixel rate. Despite this, the 930M wins the OpenCL benchmark, which suggests that Maxwell’s newer architecture extracts more real-world performance per unit of theoretical compute, or that the OpenCL workload is not purely shader-bound.

The memory subsystems also differ architecturally. The 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the K2100M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The K2100M’s memory bandwidth is 48.13 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s for the 930M—a 3.76x difference. The K2100M’s memory clock is 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the 930M’s is 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The K2100M’s wider bus and faster memory type give it a massive bandwidth advantage, which is likely why it wins the Vulkan test, a workload that often stresses memory throughput.

Specification Differences

The GeForce 930M and Quadro K2100M differ on nearly every specification except for memory size, manufacturer, foundry, and process node. Both have 2 GB of memory, are made by NVIDIA at TSMC on a 28 nm process, and share the same DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 API support. Beyond those commonalities, the specifications diverge sharply.

The chip design is entirely different: the 930M uses the GM108S (Maxwell architecture, GeForce 900M generation), while the K2100M uses the GK106S (Kepler architecture, Quadro Kepler-M generation). Transistor counts are 1,020 million for the 930M versus 2,540 million for the K2100M, with die sizes of 77 mm² and 221 mm² respectively. The 930M has a higher transistor density of 13.2M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm² for the K2100M. Clock speeds are also lower on the 930M: 549 MHz base and boost, compared to 667 MHz base and boost on the K2100M. Memory clocks differ as well, with the 930M at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) and the K2100M at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

Core counts are a major differentiator. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This leads to the K2100M’s higher throughput rates: 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s and 13.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M. Memory type and bus width differ: DDR3 on 64-bit for the 930M, GDDR5 on 128-bit for the K2100M, resulting in bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s versus 48.13 GB/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The 930M has a TDP of 33 W and an IGP slot width, while the K2100M has a TDP of 55 W and an MXM Module slot width. The bus interfaces are different: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 930M versus MXM-A (3.0) for the K2100M. The K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by nearly two years: the 930M launched on March 12, 2015, while the K2100M launched on July 22, 2013. The 930M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile, while the K2100M’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a split decision. The GeForce 930M wins the OpenCL test by 10% and has a higher average benchmark score (4388 versus 4151) and a higher percentile ranking (26th versus 25th). For users running OpenCL-based compute tasks, the 930M is the clear choice. Its Maxwell architecture, despite fewer shading units and lower clocks, delivers better real-world results in that specific API. The 930M also has a lower TDP (33 W versus 55 W) and a more compact IGP form factor, making it the better option for thin-and-light laptops where power and space are constrained.

The Quadro K2100M wins the Vulkan test by 14.1% and offers vastly superior raw specifications. It has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32, and 48.13 GB/s of memory bandwidth—all significantly higher than the 930M’s numbers. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is a generational leap over the 930M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. For Vulkan-based workloads, especially those sensitive to memory bandwidth, the K2100M is the better performer. Its MXM Module form factor also suggests it was designed for more substantial mobile workstations, though it draws 22 W more power.

The deciding factor should be the API in question. If OpenCL is the primary workload, the 930M’s 10% lead is decisive. If Vulkan is the priority, the K2100M’s 14.1% margin is equally compelling. The average scores favor the 930M slightly, but the K2100M’s Vulkan win is larger in magnitude. Users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL should pick the 930M; users who need Vulkan performance or who value the K2100M’s higher theoretical specs (more cores, more bandwidth) should pick the K2100M. Both are end-of-life products, so availability and driver support may be the ultimate arbiter, but from the data alone, this is a genuine toss-up that comes down to workload. The 930M is the better all-rounder by average score; the K2100M is the better Vulkan specialist and the better raw spec sheet.