NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target vastly different use cases. The GeForce 940M is a consumer-oriented chip from the Maxwell generation, while the Quadro K3100M is a professional workstation part based on the older Kepler architecture. Despite their differing pedigrees, the benchmark data shows they land in a similar performance tier, with the Quadro holding a consistent, though not overwhelming, edge in the available tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is limited to two synthetic workloads, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M emerges victorious in both. The most significant gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro scores 5484 against the GeForce 940M's 4549. This represents a 17% deficit for the GeForce 940M, a substantial margin that suggests the Kepler-based professional card holds a clear advantage in this particular API workload. The Vulkan result is the strongest differentiator between the two, indicating that the Quadro’s larger memory bus and higher bandwidth likely provide a meaningful edge in compute-heavy or graphics-intensive tasks that leverage this modern API.

The OpenCL results are much tighter. The Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the GeForce 940M posts 6018. The delta here is only -2.2% for the GeForce, meaning the two are nearly identical in this test. This near-parity is notable given the architectural differences between the two chips. The GeForce 940M’s higher clock speeds and newer Maxwell architecture help it close the gap against the Quadro's wider memory interface and higher shading unit count. In practical terms, users running OpenCL workloads would see almost no difference in performance between these two cards, making the choice dependent on other factors like driver certification or software compatibility.

Looking at the broader context, the average benchmark scores for both GPUs are remarkably close. The GeForce 940M has an average score of 5284, while the Quadro K3100M averages 5154. This puts the GeForce 940M slightly ahead in the aggregate, despite losing both head-to-head tests. The discrepancy arises because the GeForce 940M's benchmark suite includes only OpenCL and Vulkan, while the Quadro also includes a Geekbench Metal score of 3823, which drags down its average. This highlights a key analytical point: the head-to-head tests are the most reliable indicator of direct competition, and they show the Quadro leading, but the average scores suggest that the GeForce 940M is not far behind in overall capability.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture of near-equivalence. The GeForce 940M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M is at the 30th percentile. This one-percentage-point difference is negligible in real-world terms. Both cards are firmly in the entry-level to mid-range segment of the mobile GPU market, with neither offering class-leading performance. The closest rivals for the GeForce 940M include the GeForce GTX 980M, which scores 5308 (a -0.4% delta), and the GeForce 930A at 5317 (-0.6%). For the Quadro, the competitive set includes the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (-0.1%) and the Quadro 4000M at 5211 (-1.1%). These tight margins around each card’s average score indicate that both the GeForce 940M and Quadro K3100M are clustered with several other mid-range mobile GPUs, and any performance differences between them are unlikely to be perceptible in everyday use.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and have fundamentally different internal designs. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip, which is based on the Maxwell architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro K3100M employs the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. However, the Kepler chip is significantly larger and more complex, packing 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, with a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest directly in the core configurations. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro K3100M, despite being from an older generation, offers a more robust configuration with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the Quadro has 50% more shaders and double the TMUs and ROPs compared to the GeForce. However, the GeForce 940M compensates with much higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 1020 MHz with a boost of 1098 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at a modest 706 MHz for both base and boost. This clock advantage allows the Maxwell card to achieve a higher pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 11.30 GPixel/s, although the Quadro wins in texture rate with 45.18 GTexel/s compared to 35.14 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the two are nearly identical: the GeForce 940M delivers 1,124.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K3100M provides 1,084.4 GFLOPS.

Memory is another major point of divergence. The GeForce 940M ships with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a narrow 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth — a massive 7x increase over the GeForce. This bandwidth advantage is the primary reason the Quadro wins the Vulkan benchmark, as memory-intensive workloads can take full advantage of the wider interface. The GeForce 940M’s memory runs at an effective speed of 1800 Mbps, while the Quadro’s GDDR5 operates at 3.2 Gbps effective. Both cards are equipped with the same MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and are designed as MXM modules with no power connectors, relying on the host system for power delivery.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of where each GPU excels. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the winner in both head-to-head tests, but its victories are not uniform. Its most decisive win comes in the Vulkan workload, where its superior memory bandwidth and higher shader count allow it to outperform the GeForce 940M by a significant 17% margin. This makes the Quadro the better choice for applications that are heavily dependent on memory throughput, such as professional 3D rendering, CAD software, or any workload that involves large data sets being moved across the memory bus. The Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory also provides a capacity advantage, which is beneficial for handling larger textures or complex scenes without running into memory limits.

On the other hand, the GeForce 940M is not without its merits. Despite losing both head-to-head tests, its OpenCL score of 6018 is only 2.2% behind the Quadro’s 6154, indicating that in compute-oriented tasks that are not memory-bound, the two are effectively interchangeable. The GeForce 940M also boasts a higher average benchmark score of 5284 versus 5154 for the Quadro, driven by the fact that the GeForce does not have a Metal benchmark dragging down its average. This suggests that for users who prioritize overall synthetic benchmark performance across a broader range of tests, the GeForce 940M might have a slight edge. Additionally, the GeForce 940M’s higher clock speeds and newer Maxwell architecture make it more efficient in clock-for-clock terms, which could translate to better performance in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive workloads where the Quadro’s lower clocks are a disadvantage.

For gaming, the GeForce 940M is likely the more practical choice, as it is designed for consumer use and has a better balance of pixel fill rate and compute power for typical game workloads. The Quadro K3100M, while capable, is a professional workstation card, and its driver optimizations are typically geared toward stability and precision in professional applications rather than raw gaming performance. The data suggests that the Quadro is the superior choice for professional workloads that can leverage its memory bandwidth, while the GeForce 940M holds its own in general compute and is the better-rounded option for consumer tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5284, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5154. This puts the GeForce 940M slightly ahead in aggregate, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K3100M in the Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 5484 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce 940M scores 4549. This represents a 17% advantage for the Quadro, its largest margin of victory in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The GeForce 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs the same size?

A: No. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip with a die size of 148 mm², while the Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip with a die size of 294 mm². Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, while the GeForce 940M has 512 shading units. The Quadro also has double the TMUs and ROPs, with 64 and 32 respectively, compared to 32 and 16 for the GeForce.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: Both the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M have a TDP of 75 W, and both are MXM modules with no power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification, reflecting their different architectures and market positions.

• Chip: The GeForce 940M uses GM107, while the Quadro K3100M uses GK104.
• Architecture: The GeForce 940M is based on Maxwell; the Quadro K3100M is based on Kepler.
• Generation: The GeForce 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M series, while the Quadro K3100M is from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) series.
• Transistors: The GeForce 940M has 1,870 million transistors; the Quadro K3100M has 3,540 million.
• Die Size: The GeForce 940M measures 148 mm²; the Quadro K3100M measures 294 mm².
• Transistor Density: The GeForce 940M has a density of 12.6M / mm²; the Quadro K3100M has 12.0M / mm².
• Base Clock: The GeForce 940M runs at 1020 MHz; the Quadro K3100M runs at 706 MHz.
• Boost Clock: The GeForce 940M boosts to 1098 MHz; the Quadro K3100M is locked at 706 MHz.
• Memory Clock: The GeForce 940M has a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); the Quadro K3100M operates at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: The GeForce 940M has 2 GB; the Quadro K3100M has 4 GB.
• Memory Type: The GeForce 940M uses DDR3; the Quadro K3100M uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: The GeForce 940M has a 64-bit bus; the Quadro K3100M has a 256-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The GeForce 940M offers 14.40 GB/s; the Quadro K3100M offers 102.4 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The GeForce 940M has 512; the Quadro K3100M has 768.
• TMUs: The GeForce 940M has 32; the Quadro K3100M has 64.
• ROPs: The GeForce 940M has 16; the Quadro K3100M has 32.
• Pixel Rate: The GeForce 940M achieves 17.57 GPixel/s; the Quadro K3100M achieves 11.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The GeForce 940M delivers 35.14 GTexel/s; the Quadro K3100M delivers 45.18 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The GeForce 940M computes 1,124.4 GFLOPS; the Quadro K3100M computes 1,084.4 GFLOPS.
• Vulkan API Support: The GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.
• Release Date: The GeForce 940M was released on 2015-03-12; the Quadro K3100M was released on 2013-07-22.
• Predecessor: The GeForce 940M replaces the GeForce 800M; the Quadro K3100M replaces the Quadro Fermi-M.
• Successor: The GeForce 940M is succeeded by the GeForce 10 Mobile; the Quadro K3100M is succeeded by the Quadro Maxwell-M.