NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M represent two distinct philosophies in mobile graphics, even though both hail from NVIDIA and share a 28 nm manufacturing process. The recorded data shows a clear split in their intended workloads, with the Quadro K3100M dominating the benchmarks while the GeForce 930M counters with a dramatically lower power envelope and a more modern architecture. This analysis examines where each chip wins, what the numbers imply for real-world usage, and how the architectural differences explain the performance gap.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the outright performance winner. It takes both head-to-head tests, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6154 against the GeForce 930M’s 5046, a 22% advantage. The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap, with the Quadro K3100M scoring 5484 versus 3729, a 47.1% lead. There is no benchmark where the GeForce 930M comes out ahead. The wins tally confirms this, showing 2 wins for the Quadro K3100M and 0 for the GeForce 930M.

The GeForce 930M’s case does not rest on performance wins but on efficiency. Its TDP is 33 W, less than half of the Quadro K3100M’s 75 W. This is a decisive advantage for thin-and-light laptops where heat dissipation and battery life are primary concerns. The GeForce 930M is also an IGP (integrated graphics processor) package, meaning it is designed to be soldered directly onto the motherboard, whereas the Quadro K3100M is an MXM Module, a removable card typically found in larger, more serviceable workstation laptops.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Quadro K3100M is the choice for tasks that demand raw compute throughput, such as CAD, 3D rendering, and scientific simulations, where the extra 22% to 47% performance directly translates to faster results. The GeForce 930M is the choice for everyday consumer workloads, light media playback, and casual gaming, where its 33 W power draw allows for quieter, cooler, and more portable designs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for different audiences. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is for professionals who need maximum compute performance in a mobile workstation. Its 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while modest, is still higher than the GeForce 930M’s 26th percentile. More importantly, its average benchmark score of 5154 is substantially higher than the GeForce 930M’s 4388, a difference of 766 points, or roughly 17.5% on average across all tests.

The GeForce 930M, on the other hand, is for users who prioritize portability and battery life over performance. Its 33 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for ultrabooks and mainstream laptops where a discrete MXM card would be impractical. Its average score of 4388 places it close to rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411, a -0.5% delta) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, a 0.7% delta), indicating it is a solid entry-level option but nothing more.

For a professional user running OpenCL-based engineering software, the Quadro K3100M is the only rational choice. For a consumer who occasionally plays older games or streams video, the GeForce 930M’s lower power draw and adequate performance make it a reasonable fit. The data does not support any scenario where the GeForce 930M outperforms the Quadro K3100M, so the verdict is based on efficiency versus raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test highlights the Quadro K3100M’s compute advantage. With a score of 6154 versus the GeForce 930M’s 5046, the Quadro K3100M is 22% faster. This test is particularly relevant for GPU-accelerated tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, and machine learning inference. The Quadro K3100M’s 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units provide a substantial parallel processing capability, while its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures data flows quickly to the compute units.

The Vulkan test reveals an even more pronounced gap. The Quadro K3100M scores 5484, while the GeForce 930M scores 3729, a 47.1% lead for the older card. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from raw hardware throughput, and the Quadro K3100M’s larger memory bus (256 bit versus 64 bit) and higher bandwidth are the likely contributors. The GeForce 930M’s 12.80 GB/s bandwidth is a fraction of the Quadro K3100M’s 102.4 GB/s, which becomes a bottleneck in memory-intensive workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro K3100M’s average score of 5154 places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161) and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211). It is 1.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236) but 1.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063). This shows the Quadro K3100M is competitive with mid-range mobile GPUs of its era, despite being a workstation part.

The GeForce 930M’s average score of 4388 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360). It is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), a curious data point that likely reflects the benchmark’s specific workload rather than real-world gaming performance. It is also 2.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). These deltas indicate the GeForce 930M is a baseline performer, not a standout.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has an average score of 4388. The Quadro K3100M is roughly 17.5% higher.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The largest difference is in the GeekBench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 5484 versus the GeForce 930M’s 3729, a 47.1% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Does the GeForce 930M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins both the GeekBench OpenCL and GeekBench Vulkan tests. The wins tally is 2 for the Quadro K3100M and 0 for the GeForce 930M.

Q: How does the power consumption compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M has a TDP of 33 W. The GeForce 930M consumes less than half the power.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 12.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M was released on 2013-07-22, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M was released on 2015-03-12. The GeForce 930M is newer by about 20 months.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. This is a significant generational leap, as Maxwell was designed to improve performance-per-watt over Kepler.

The transistor count reflects this difference in design philosophy. The Quadro K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GeForce 930M has only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density tells a different story: the Kepler chip has 12.0M transistors per mm², while the Maxwell chip has 13.2M per mm². This indicates Maxwell is a denser, more efficient design, even though it has far fewer total transistors.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GeForce 930M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. This means the Quadro K3100M has exactly double the shading units and more than double the TMUs and ROPs. The pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 4.392 GPixel/s for the GeForce, and the texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. These are raw throughput differences that directly impact fill-rate-bound workloads.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The Quadro K3100M runs at a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the GeForce 930M runs at 549 MHz for both. This lower clock speed, combined with fewer cores, results in FP32 performance of 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the GeForce. The Quadro K3100M is more than 2.5 times faster in theoretical floating-point performance.

The memory subsystem is a stark contrast. The Quadro K3100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 12.80 GB/s. This eightfold difference in bandwidth is likely the primary reason for the huge Vulkan performance gap, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory access patterns.

Both GPUs share the same 28 nm process node and are fabricated by TSMC. They both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, indicating a more modern driver stack for the newer card. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two GPUs are substantial and directly explain the benchmark results.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M | NVIDIA GeForce 930M |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GM108S |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 12.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.30 GPixel/s | 4.392 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.18 GTexel/s | 13.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,084.4 GFLOPS | 421.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

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

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

The power connector situation is identical, with neither card requiring external power connectors. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro K3100M succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M and preceding the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GeForce 930M succeeds the GeForce 800M and precedes the GeForce 10 Mobile. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The bus interface is a notable difference. The Quadro K3100M uses the MXM-B (3.0) interface, which is a standardized mobile module connector, while the GeForce 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, a more common interface for integrated or semi-integrated solutions. This makes the GeForce 930M easier to integrate into diverse laptop designs, while the Quadro K3100M requires a chassis with an MXM slot.

The display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning their connectivity is determined by the laptop manufacturer. The GeForce 930M’s lower transistor count and die size allow for a much smaller physical footprint, which is consistent with its IGP designation. The Quadro K3100M’s larger die and MXM form factor are better suited for larger, higher-performance notebooks.

In summary, the recorded data shows two GPUs at opposite ends of the mobile spectrum. The Quadro K3100M trades power efficiency for raw compute, while the GeForce 930M does the reverse. The benchmarks leave no doubt about which is faster, but the 33 W TDP of the GeForce 930M makes it a compelling option for devices where power is the primary constraint.