NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target very different segments of the laptop market. The data places the Quadro K2100M in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce GT 635M sits at the 22nd percentile. In the only directly comparable benchmark, the Quadro K2100M decisively outperforms the GT 635M, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4587 against 3740, a delta of 22.6%. This performance gap is rooted in fundamental architectural differences, with the Quadro leveraging a newer Kepler design against the older Fermi architecture of the GT 635M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison yields a single data point, but it is a revealing one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, which is 22.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's score of 3740. This is not a marginal victory; it represents a significant generational leap in compute throughput. The Quadro K2100M's advantage is so pronounced that its score of 4587 places it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which averages 4193, and actually exceeds the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB's average score of 4093 by 1.4%.

Conversely, the GeForce GT 635M's score of 3740 puts it in a much lower performance tier. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, scores 3718, making the GT 635M 0.6% faster. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3717, by the same 0.6% margin. The GT 635M is 1.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, which scores 3694, but falls 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710, which scores 3792. These rivalries show that the GT 635M is competitive with other entry-level parts from its era, but it is fundamentally outclassed by the Quadro K2100M, which competes in a higher tier despite its modest 25th percentile ranking.

The delta of 22.6% in OpenCL performance is the single largest differentiator in this matchup. The Quadro K2100M's score of 4587 also translates to an average benchmark score of 4151 across all its tested workloads, while the GT 635M's average is identical to its single OpenCL result at 3740. This indicates that the Quadro K2100M has a higher overall performance ceiling, and the OpenCL result is not an outlier but a reflection of its superior compute capabilities. The GT 635M has no other benchmark results to compare, which limits the scope of the analysis, but the available evidence is unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GT 635M, meanwhile, uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF108 chip, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is critical. The Quadro K2100M packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The GT 635M, in contrast, has only 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, with a density of just 5.0M per mm². The Quadro K2100M has over four times the transistor count, which directly enables its higher compute throughput.

This transistor budget is allocated to a much larger execution engine. The Quadro K2100M features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 635M is far more modest, with just 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro K2100M has 6 times the shading units and 3 times the TMUs, leading to massive theoretical throughput advantages. The pixel rate of the Quadro K2100M is 8.004 GPixel/s, compared to 1.900 GPixel/s for the GT 635M, and its texture rate is 32.02 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells a similar story: the Quadro K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GT 635M manages only 182.4 GFLOPS.

Memory technology further widens the gap. The Quadro K2100M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s. The GT 635M also has 2 GB of memory, but it is slower DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of just 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro K2100M's memory clock is 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GT 635M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The generational difference in memory type is a major factor in the Quadro's superior bandwidth and overall compute efficiency. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K2100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the GT 635M lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in every measurable category in this comparison. It is the faster GPU for any compute-heavy workload, as evidenced by its 22.6% lead in OpenCL. This makes it the better choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing, such as rendering, scientific simulations, or video encoding. Its higher pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s also indicate superior rasterization and texturing capabilities, which would translate to better performance in modern 3D applications and games. The Quadro K2100M's support for Vulkan 1.2.175 also future-proofs it for titles that utilize this modern API, a feature entirely absent from the GT 635M.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's only advantage lies in its lower power draw. With a TDP of 35 W, it consumes 20 W less than the Quadro K2100M's 55 W TDP. This makes the GT 635M a more suitable option for ultra-thin laptops where battery life and thermal management are paramount. Its IGP slot width indicates it is an integrated GPU soldered directly to the motherboard, whereas the Quadro K2100M is a replaceable MXM Module. For users with that specific form factor need, the GT 635M is the only choice. However, in pure performance terms, the GT 635M has no wins. Its single benchmark score of 3740 is lower than the Quadro K2100M's score in every test, and its nearest rivals, such as the Quadro 3000M and GT 740M, are all within a 1.2% margin, underscoring its position in the entry-level tier.

The use-case split is clear: the Quadro K2100M is for users who need professional-grade compute and graphics performance in a mobile workstation. The GT 635M is for users who prioritize power efficiency and a compact form factor over performance, accepting its 28.80 GB/s memory bandwidth and 182.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput as a trade-off for its 35 W power envelope. The Quadro K2100M's higher transistor density and 48 TMUs make it the undisputed winner for any graphics-intensive task, while the GT 635M's 4 ROPs and 96 shading units limit it to basic display output and light 2D workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal differences in nearly every component. The process node differs, with the Quadro K2100M at 28 nm versus the GT 635M at 40 nm. The chip designs are entirely different: GK106S versus GF108. Transistor count is 2,540 million versus 585 million, and die size is 221 mm² versus 116 mm². The transistor density is 11.5M / mm² for the Quadro K2100M and 5.0M / mm² for the GT 635M. Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the GT 635M has no listed base or boost clock, while the Quadro K2100M runs at 667 MHz base and boost. Memory clocks are 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro K2100M versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the GT 635M.

Memory type is a key differentiator: GDDR5 versus DDR3. Both have 2 GB capacity and a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 48.13 GB/s for the Quadro K2100M and 28.80 GB/s for the GT 635M. The shading units are 576 versus 96, TMUs are 48 versus 16, and ROPs are 16 versus 4. Pixel rate is 8.004 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 32.02 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 768.4 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS. TDP is 55 W versus 35 W. The slot width is MXM Module versus IGP. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 635M does not. The Quadro K2100M's generation is "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)" and the GT 635M's is "GeForce 600M". The release dates are also different: 2013-07-22 for the Quadro K2100M and 2012-03-21 for the GT 635M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4587, which is 22.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's score of 3740.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s using GDDR5 memory, while the GT 635M has a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s using DDR3 memory. Both have a 128-bit bus and 2 GB capacity.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K2100M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 635M has no Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has more processing cores?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GT 635M has a lower TDP of 35 W.

Q: Which GPU is ranked higher overall?

A: The Quadro K2100M is in the 25th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 4151. The GT 635M is in the 22nd percentile with an average score of 3740.

Q: How does the Quadro K2100M compare to other GPUs in its tier?

A: Its score of 4587 in OpenCL is 1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti's average of 4193 and 1.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB's average of 4093.