NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single direct comparison between these two mobile graphics processors. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M scores 6493. The K4100M finishes 40.9% ahead, a substantial margin that reflects the generational gap between the two designs. This is the only head-to-head result in the database, and it shows a clear winner in raw compute workloads. The K4100M's OpenCL result also exceeds its own average benchmark score of 7906, meaning this particular test lands well above its typical performance level. The GT 555M's OpenCL score of 6493 is exactly equal to its average benchmark score, indicating consistency in that workload.

When placed against broader market context, the K4100M sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the GT 555M ranks at the 37th percentile. The K4100M's average score of 7906 places it within a tight cluster of competitors. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, averages 7925, which puts the K4100M just 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 averages 8039, a 1.7% advantage over the K4100M. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and GTX 650 Ti post averages of 8040 and 8053 respectively, both roughly 1.7% to 1.8% ahead. These margins are small, meaning the K4100M trades blows with a range of desktop and high-end mobile parts from its era.

The GT 555M, by contrast, holds its own among lower-tier competitors. Its average of 6493 sits 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M, which scores 6481. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile scores 6476, placing it 0.3% behind the GT 555M. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M scores 6513, a 0.3% edge over the GT 555M. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554, which is 0.9% ahead. This grouping shows the GT 555M performing in a narrow band near the 6500-point mark, with no rival more than 1% away in either direction. The K4100M, meanwhile, operates in a higher performance tier altogether.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149 versus 6493 for the GeForce GT 555M, a 40.9% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro K4100M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The K4100M averages 7906. It sits 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 460 (7925), 1.7% behind both the Quadro P5000 (8039) and GeForce GTX 880M (8040), and 1.8% behind the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053).

Q: What is the closest competitor to the GeForce GT 555M?

A: The Quadro M5000M averages 6481, just 0.2% behind the GT 555M's 6493. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is 0.3% behind, the GeForce GTX 670M is 0.3% ahead, and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 0.9% ahead.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both report DirectX 12 (11_0) support. Both also support OpenGL 4.6. The K4100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GT 555M has no recorded Vulkan version.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 555M has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The K4100M delivers 16.94 GPixel/s, roughly 4.8 times the 3.540 GPixel/s of the GT 555M. The texture rates are 67.78 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different NVIDIA architecture generations. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, while the GeForce GT 555M uses the GF106 chip from the Fermi architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different process nodes: the K4100M uses 28 nm, while the GT 555M uses 40 nm. This process difference contributes to a significant transistor density gap. The K4100M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GT 555M carries 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, for a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. In raw terms, the K4100M has roughly three times the transistor count on a modestly larger die.

The K4100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx100M), while the GT 555M comes from the GeForce 500M generation. Their production lineage also differs: the K4100M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GT 555M's predecessor is the GeForce 400M and its successor is the GeForce 600M. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Compute resources differ sharply. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GT 555M has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K4100M therefore fields eight times the shading units and four times the TMUs. Neither chip includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The K4100M's FP32 throughput is 1.627 TFLOPS, while the GT 555M manages 339.8 GFLOPS, a ratio of roughly 4.8 to 1.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The K4100M has a base clock of 706 MHz with an identical boost clock of 706 MHz, while the GT 555M has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also diverge: the K4100M runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the GT 555M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Despite the lower clock, the K4100M's wider bus and GDDR5 type deliver far higher bandwidth.

Memory capacity and type differ completely. The K4100M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 555M offers 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, for 28.80 GB/s. That is a 3.6 times bandwidth advantage for the K4100M. The pixel rate is 16.94 GPixel/s versus 3.540 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 67.78 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s. Power consumption also differs: the K4100M is rated at 100 W, while the GT 555M is rated at 35 W.

The bus interface marks another distinction. The K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0) and comes as an MXM Module. The GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has no recorded slot width. Neither has power connectors listed, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The API support shows one difference: the K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 555M has no recorded Vulkan version. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Release timing also separates them. The GT 555M launched on 2011-07-01, while the K4100M launched on 2013-07-22. The K4100M has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,499 USD. The GT 555M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The K4100M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it wins decisively. In OpenCL compute, it is 40.9% faster than the GT 555M. That single result covers the entire head-to-head dataset, so the K4100M claims all wins in this comparison. Its higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and larger memory pool all support this outcome. For workloads that stress raw compute throughput, such as OpenCL-based rendering or simulation tasks, the K4100M is the clear choice. Its 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 339.8 GFLOPS means compute-heavy applications will see a massive difference.

The GT 555M, however, has no recorded benchmark wins against the K4100M. Its only recorded result is the OpenCL score of 6493, which falls 40.9% short. Where the GT 555M does hold an advantage is in power consumption. At 35 W, it draws less than half the power of the K4100M's 100 W. For portable devices where power draw is a limiting factor, the GT 555M offers a lighter load. Its smaller die size and lower transistor count also suggest a simpler manufacturing footprint. The GT 555M's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface may integrate more easily into certain laptop designs compared to the K4100M's MXM-B (3.0) module format.

The K4100M also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 4 GB GDDR5 pool with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the 1024 MB DDR3 pool with 28.80 GB/s. Applications that require large framebuffers or high-bandwidth data movement will favor the K4100M. The K4100M's higher ROP count of 32 versus 16 also aids pixel-heavy workloads. In every recorded performance metric, the K4100M leads.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the stronger GPU in this pairing. Its 40.9% OpenCL advantage over the GeForce GT 555M is decisive, and its average benchmark score of 7906 versus 6493 reinforces that gap. The K4100M also carries architectural advantages that explain the performance difference: Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, 1152 shading units, 4 GB of GDDR5, and a 256-bit memory bus. Anyone selecting a GPU for compute-heavy mobile workloads should favor the K4100M without hesitation.

The GT 555M, while outclassed in performance, retains a niche for low-power mobile applications. Its 35 W TDP is a meaningful advantage in thermally constrained laptops. The Fermi architecture at 40 nm is older and less dense, but it still supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, making it usable for modern API requirements that do not rely on Vulkan. The GT 555M's modest 144 shading units and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth limit its usefulness to lighter workloads.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The K4100M sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the GT 555M sits at the 37th percentile. Both are mid-range performers in the grand scheme, but the K4100M operates in a higher tier. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 460, Quadro P5000, GTX 880M, and GTX 650 Ti, all of which score within 2% of the K4100M. The GT 555M's nearest rivals are lower-tier parts like the Quadro M5000M, Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, GTX 670M, and Intel UHD Graphics P750.

For users prioritizing performance, the K4100M is the only sensible pick. For users prioritizing power efficiency and lighter thermal loads, the GT 555M has a reason to exist. The database contains no scenario where the GT 555M wins a benchmark against the K4100M, so the choice reduces to workload requirements and power constraints. The K4100M is end-of-life, as is the GT 555M, so neither represents a forward-looking investment. Within the recorded data, the K4100M is the clear winner in every measured performance category.