NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro K3100M and GeForce GTS 450 are both end-of-life parts, but they represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The K3100M is a mobile workstation GPU built on the 28 nm Kepler architecture, while the GTS 450 is a desktop consumer card from the 40 nm Fermi generation. Benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the details of their architectures and intended use cases tell a more nuanced story. The K3100M leads in the only shared benchmark, but the GTS 450 holds its own in specific legacy scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are one-sided in raw compute, but the use-case split goes deeper than a single score. The Quadro K3100M wins the only directly comparable test — Geekbench OpenCL — with a score of 6154 against the GTS 450’s 4893, a 25.8% advantage. This makes the K3100M the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated workloads like scientific simulation, image processing, or any professional application that offloads compute to the GPU. Its average benchmark score of 5154 across all tests reinforces this lead, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs.

The GTS 450, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its average benchmark score is 4893, which puts it in the 28th percentile — just two percentage points lower than the K3100M. Where the GTS 450 might still make sense is in its physical format. As a dual-slot desktop card with PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and 2x DVI plus mini-HDMI outputs, it is designed to sit in a stationary tower and drive legacy displays. The K3100M is an MXM module, meaning it is portable-device dependent for display outputs and cannot be dropped into a standard desktop slot. For users with an older desktop system that needs a DX11-capable card, the GTS 450 is the only one of the two that physically fits.

The K3100M also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, which matters for large datasets. It carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.73 GB/s. That is a 44.8 GB/s gap, which translates directly to how much data can be fed to the compute units per second. The K3100M’s higher pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s vs 6.264 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s vs 25.06 GTexel/s) further cement its lead in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip on the Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, with a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The density difference alone explains much of the performance gap — Kepler packs more than twice the transistors per area.

Core counts follow the same pattern. The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shading units and a 2x difference in both TMUs and ROPs. Floating-point performance reflects this: the K3100M delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTS 450 manages 601.3 GFLOPS. The K3100M is 80.3% faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Memory clocks differ in effective data rate but not in type. The K3100M runs its GDDR5 at 3.2 Gbps effective, while the GTS 450 runs at 3.6 Gbps effective — the GTS 450 actually has a faster memory clock per pin. However, the K3100M’s wider 256-bit bus overwhelms that advantage, resulting in 102.4 GB/s versus 57.73 GB/s. The GTS 450 compensates slightly with a higher base memory clock in MHz (902 MHz vs 800 MHz), but the bus width is decisive.

Power and physical requirements diverge sharply. The K3100M is rated at 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, fitting into an MXM-B (3.0) slot. The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, needs a single 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W power supply. The K3100M’s lower power draw makes it viable in laptops and compact workstations, while the GTS 450 demands a desktop PSU with headroom. The GTS 450 measures 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height, a dual-slot footprint that is typical for 2010-era desktop cards.

API support is another differentiator. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K3100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed. This is a significant feature gap for modern applications that use Vulkan for cross-platform rendering or compute. The K3100M’s newer architecture also means it supports the full Kepler feature set, including bindless textures and other professional rendering extensions that are not present on Fermi.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K3100M as the superior GPU in every measurable performance metric. It is 25.8% ahead in OpenCL, has 4x the memory capacity, 1.8x the bandwidth, and more than 2x the fill rates. Its 28 nm process and Kepler architecture deliver 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute against the GTS 450’s 601.3 GFLOPS. For any workload that uses OpenCL or requires large memory buffers, the K3100M is the only rational choice.

However, the GTS 450 is not without a niche. It is a desktop card with standard display outputs (2x DVI, mini-HDMI 1.3a) and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, making it immediately installable in a legacy desktop. The K3100M is an MXM module that depends on the host device for display outputs, so it cannot be used as a drop-in desktop upgrade. The GTS 450 also has a higher effective memory clock (3.6 Gbps vs 3.2 Gbps), which gives it a slight per-pin speed edge, though the K3100M’s wider bus negates this in practice.

Pick the K3100M if you need compute performance, large memory, or Vulkan support in a mobile or embedded form factor. Pick the GTS 450 if you have an older desktop motherboard with a PCIe 2.0 slot and need a functional DX11 card with conventional outputs. The GTS 450’s 106 W TDP and 300 W PSU recommendation make it less efficient, but it remains a serviceable entry-level desktop GPU for legacy systems.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.8% higher than the GeForce GTS 450’s score of 4893.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The K3100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTS 450 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. The K3100M also has a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, giving it 102.4 GB/s bandwidth compared to 57.73 GB/s.

Q: Can I use the Quadro K3100M in a desktop tower?

A: The K3100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM Module, so it is designed for portable devices. Its display outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it is not a standard desktop card.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The K3100M is rated at 75 W TDP with no power connectors needed. The GTS 450 is rated at 106 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The K3100M has 768 shading units, while the GTS 450 has 192. The K3100M also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the GTS 450.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the Quadro K3100M. The K3100M scores 6154, while the GTS 450 scores 4893, resulting in a delta of 25.8% in favor of the K3100M. This is not a marginal victory — it is a substantial gap that reflects the underlying hardware differences. The K3100M’s 768 shading units and 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute simply outmuscle the GTS 450’s 192 shading units and 601.3 GFLOPS.

The closest rival data reinforces the K3100M’s standing. Its nearest competitor, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, scores 5161 on average, which is just 0.1% higher than the K3100M’s 5154 average. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) and GeForce GTX 760M (5236) are also within 1.6% of the K3100M. This means the K3100M sits in a tight competitive cluster at its performance tier, but it is clearly ahead of the GTS 450.

The GTS 450’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4901 — just 0.2% above the GTS 450’s 4893. The AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) and AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929) are similarly close, with deltas of -0.2% and -0.7% respectively. The GTS 450 is therefore competitive with a much newer GPU (the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB) in this specific benchmark, which is surprising given its 2010 vintage. However, that comparison is based solely on average scores and does not account for the RTX card’s modern features, which are not listed in this dataset.

The K3100M’s wins extend beyond the OpenCL test. Its pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s is 80.4% higher than the GTS 450’s 6.264 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s is 80.3% higher than the GTS 450’s 25.06 GTexel/s. These fill-rate advantages matter for any rasterization workload, even if the benchmark suite only captured one compute test. The K3100M also has a 100% larger memory capacity (4 GB vs 1024 MB) and a 77.2% higher bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 57.73 GB/s), which reduces bottlenecks when working with large textures or datasets.

In summary, the head-to-head data is unambiguous: the K3100M wins the only shared benchmark by a wide margin, and its architectural advantages in shading units, memory, and fill rates all point in the same direction. The GTS 450 remains a functional legacy card, but it is outclassed in every quantitative comparison available in this dataset.