NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

# The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M occupy different tiers of the mobile graphics market, and the benchmark data makes the separation clear. Across the recorded database, the Quadro K2100M delivers a significantly higher average benchmark score of 4151 compared to 3616 for the GT 735M, a 14.8% advantage. The Quadro K2100M wins the only direct head-to-head comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 26.9%. The K2100M is the pick for users who need consistent, professional-grade compute performance, while the GT 735M remains a serviceable entry-level option. The data also shows the K2100M sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 735M sits in the 21st percentile, meaning both are in the lower half of the performance distribution, but the Quadro is clearly the stronger of the two.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip, part of the Kepler architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The GeForce GT 735M, on the other hand, uses the GK208 chip, part of the Kepler 2.0 architecture, also built at TSMC but on a 28 nm node. It packs 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 87 mm² die, resulting in a higher transistor density of 11.7M per mm². These differences in chip complexity and density explain a good part of the performance gap.

Memory and bandwidth also favor the Quadro. The K2100M is equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory across a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 735M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a significantly lower 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clocks run at 752 MHz with an effective 3 Gbps data rate, while the GeForce's memory clocks run at 900 MHz with an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps. These memory subsystem differences are a major contributor to the measured performance delta.

The shading and rendering resources also differ. The Quadro K2100M integrates 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GT 735M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro can process 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, versus 5.024 GPixel/s and 20.10 GTexel/s for the GT 735M. Compute throughput is similarly skewed: 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M versus 482.3 GFLOPS for the GT 735M. The Quadro also holds a 108.8 GB/s memory bandwidth advantage, which is decisive in many workloads.

The Quadro's feature set is aimed at professional applications. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both share the same API support levels, but the K2100M's larger shading and memory resources give it an edge in sustained, complex scenes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the two in Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K2100M scored 4587, the GT 735M scored 3616. The K2100M is 26.9% faster in this workload. That is the largest and only recorded win in the head-to-head data.

Looking at the broader set of nearest rivals in the database, the K2100M's average score of 4151 puts it 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330, 1% behind the NVIDIA GTX 1050 Ti, and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. This result shows that the Quadro is operating in a class with these mid-range parts, not far away from them. The GT 735M's average score of 3616, however, is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GTX 1050, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA GT 545. The performance deltas are small, but the recorded trend is consistent: the Quadro is the stronger card in every surrounding competition.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 26.9%. Its average score across all recorded workloads is 4151, versus 3616 for the GeForce GT 735M, an advantage of 14.8%.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M have more compute power?

A: Yes. The Quadro K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GT 735M delivers 482.3 GFLOPS. That is a 59.3% advantage for the Quadro in raw compute.

Q: Which GPU has the larger memory bus?

A: The Quadro K2100M uses a 128-bit memory bus, double the 64-bit bus of the GT 735M. The K2100M also has 48.13 GB/s of memory bandwidth, versus 14.40 GB/s for the GT 735M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units and 16 ROPs, while the GT 735M has 384 shading units and 8 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The architecture, memory, and shading resources split the workloads cleanly.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M when the workload is multi-threaded or memory-bound. The 128-bit memory bus, 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth, and higher shading-unit count are decisive in OpenCL-style workloads. The direct head-to-head shows it: 26.9% faster than the GT 735M. Its Kepler GK106S silicon, while physically larger at 221 mm², packs 2,540 million transistors and 576 shading units. The K2100M is also the only card of the two that supports Vulkan 1.2.175, but both support the full DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 feature sets. Data centers or mobile workstations with sustained rendering needs should use the K2100M.

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M when workloads are lighter or memory-bandwidth-limited. Its smaller die (87 mm²), 64-bit bus, and 384 shading units are enough for less demanding games and general tasks. The GT 735M is also a lower power draw at 33W versus 55W for the Quadro, which matters in compact laptops. Its 8 ROPs and 32 TMUs are adequate for 1080p-class workloads. The GT 735M's 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while much lower, is sufficient for its target segment. The GT 735M is a capable entry-level part for cost-sensitive systems that are not pushing heavy compute. The Quadro K2100M remains the better performer in every recorded benchmark, but the GT 735M is the more power-efficient, lower-power alternative.