NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two common benchmark workloads almost exactly down the middle, with each taking one decisive victory. In Geekbench Metal, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M posts a score of 3524 against the GeForce GT 755M’s 3132, a 12.5% advantage that represents the largest performance gap in either direction. The Quadro’s Metal lead is substantial enough to suggest a clear edge in Apple-centric compute or graphics workloads that rely on that API. The GeForce GT 755M answers back in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 4934 versus the Quadro’s 4587, a 7% swing in the opposite direction. This split result means neither card can claim overall supremacy; instead, the winner depends entirely on the workload’s API and execution model.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the two cards sit remarkably close in average score. The Quadro K2100M averages 4151 across its three recorded tests, while the GeForce GT 755M averages 4033 across two tests. The Quadro’s average is buoyed by a strong Vulkan score of 4343, a test the GeForce did not run. The GeForce’s OpenCL result is its standout, beating the Quadro’s OpenCL score by a meaningful margin. When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards occupy similar tiers: the Quadro’s 4151 average is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), while the GeForce’s 4033 average is within 1% of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075) and AMD FirePro M4150 (4013). The percentile rankings reinforce this parity, with the Quadro at the 25th percentile of all GPUs and the GeForce at the 24th. These are not high-flying parts by any stretch, but they are not bottom-tier either — they land in the lower-middle range of the performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture and fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but their underlying chips tell different stories. The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S die, which packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² footprint, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The GeForce GT 755M uses the smaller GK107 chip, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, a density of 10.8 million per mm². The Quadro’s die is roughly twice the size and holds twice the transistor count, yet the GeForce achieves comparable raw throughput figures. This is a direct result of clock speed differences: the GeForce runs at a 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost, while the Quadro is locked at a flat 667 MHz for both base and boost. That 313 MHz clock advantage at the top end explains how a smaller chip keeps pace with a larger one.

The compute resources are distributed differently as well. The Quadro fields 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. Despite having 50% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, the Quadro’s lower clocks bring its peak rates almost exactly in line with the GeForce’s: the Quadro delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and a 32.02 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GeForce delivers 783.4 GFLOPS and 32.64 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are similarly close, at 8.004 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 8.160 GPixel/s for the GeForce. In essence, the Quadro’s wider architecture is neutralized by the GeForce’s higher frequency, producing near-identical peak throughput in every category.

Memory configurations are identical in capacity and bus width — 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface — but the memory clocks diverge sharply. The Quadro runs its memory at 752 MHz, yielding 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce runs at 1350 MHz, producing 86.40 GB/s, a 79% bandwidth advantage that likely explains its OpenCL win. Both cards draw power from an MXM module slot with no additional power connectors, but the Quadro is rated at 55 W TDP versus the GeForce’s 50 W, a modest difference given the Quadro’s larger die. The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GeForce uses PCIe 3.0 x16, though both are portable-device oriented with display outputs dependent on the host laptop. API support is identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 on both. The GeForce’s GK107 has a lower transistor density (10.8M / mm²) than the Quadro’s GK106S (11.5M / mm²), a small but notable efficiency gap in the silicon layout.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data draws a clear line between the two cards’ strengths. The Quadro K2100M wins decisively in Geekbench Metal, where its 3524 score outpaces the GeForce’s 3132 by 12.5%. This makes the Quadro the better choice for Metal-accelerated applications, which typically include macOS creative software, video encoding, and certain 3D rendering pipelines. The Quadro also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score (4151 vs 4033), thanks in part to its Vulkan result of 4343 — a test the GeForce did not participate in. If a workload uses Vulkan, the Quadro is the only one of the two with a recorded result in that API, and its score is competitive with its OpenCL and Metal numbers.

The GeForce GT 755M takes the OpenCL crown with a 4934 score, beating the Quadro’s 4587 by 7%. OpenCL is a broad compute standard used in scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and cross-platform rendering, so this win matters for general-purpose compute tasks. The GeForce’s near-identical peak FP32 rate (783.4 GFLOPS vs 768.4 GFLOPS) combined with its vastly superior memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 48.13 GB/s) makes it the more balanced compute performer. The GeForce also edges out the Quadro in pixel rate (8.160 vs 8.004 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.64 vs 32.02 GTexel/s), though these margins are under 2% and unlikely to be perceptible in real workloads. For memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks like texture-heavy gaming or large data transfers, the GeForce’s bandwidth advantage is the deciding factor.

The Verdict

The data presents a genuine toss-up, with each GPU winning one head-to-head benchmark and both sitting within 3% of each other in average score. For users prioritizing Metal-based workflows, the Quadro K2100M is the clear pick — its 12.5% Metal advantage is the single largest gap recorded between the two, and its additional Vulkan result gives it API coverage the GeForce lacks. The Quadro’s higher transistor count (2,540 million vs 1,270 million) and larger die (221 mm² vs 118 mm²) suggest more headroom for professional driver optimizations, even if the clocks are lower. Its 55 W TDP is slightly higher, but acceptable for an MXM module.

For users who lean on OpenCL compute or need the fastest memory subsystem, the GeForce GT 755M wins. Its 7% OpenCL lead is backed by a 79% bandwidth advantage (86.40 GB/s vs 48.13 GB/s), which is the most dramatic hardware difference between the two cards. The GeForce also delivers higher peak FP32 (783.4 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate, and higher texture rate, all while drawing 5 W less power. Its 50 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it the more efficient and flexible option for general-purpose portable computing. The percentile ranking difference is negligible (24th vs 25th), so neither card offers a meaningful standing advantage in the GPU hierarchy. Pick the Quadro for Metal and Vulkan coverage; pick the GeForce for OpenCL and bandwidth-bound tasks. There is no overall winner — only the right tool for the specific workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M averages 4151 across its three recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M averages 4033 across two tests. The Quadro leads by 118 points, or roughly 2.9%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2100M in Geekbench Metal?

A: The Quadro scores 3524 in Geekbench Metal versus the GeForce GT 755M’s 3132, a 12.5% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in any shared benchmark between the two.

Q: What explains the GeForce GT 755M’s OpenCL win?

A: The GeForce scores 4934 in OpenCL versus the Quadro’s 4587, a 7% lead. Its memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s is 79% higher than the Quadro’s 48.13 GB/s, which gives it a major advantage in bandwidth-sensitive compute workloads.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the memory clocks differ. The Quadro runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GeForce runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), producing 48.13 GB/s and 86.40 GB/s respectively.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and TMUs?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, while the GeForce GT 755M has 384 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher counts are offset by its lower 667 MHz clocks versus the GeForce’s 980 MHz base.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where only one of the two has a recorded score?

A: Yes. The Quadro K2100M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4343, which the GeForce GT 755M has no recorded result for. The GeForce has no additional exclusive tests beyond the shared Metal and OpenCL benchmarks.