NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two common benchmark results for these two GPUs, and both are decisive wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 1080 scores 23,824 points against the Quadro K5100M’s 8,315 points. That is a 186.5% advantage, meaning the Pascal-based card delivers nearly three times the Metal performance of the older Kepler mobile workstation part. The gap is even wider in Geekbench OpenCL: the GTX 1080 posts 51,204 points, while the Quadro K5100M manages only 11,771 points. That works out to a 335% lead, a fourfold difference in raw compute throughput under OpenCL.

These two tests are the only head-to-head comparisons available, so the overall win count is 2 for the GTX 1080 and 0 for the Quadro K5100M. The magnitude of these deltas is striking. A 335% improvement in OpenCL is not a marginal generational step; it reflects a complete change in execution resources, memory bandwidth, and clock behavior. The Metal test tells a similar story, though the 186.5% delta indicates that Metal workloads may not scale quite as aggressively as OpenCL ones, possibly due to driver maturity or the specific workload mix in that benchmark.

To put these numbers in context, the GTX 1080’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 11,960, which places it at the 51st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 960A (average score 11,998, only 0.3% higher), the Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842, 1% lower), the GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, 2.4% lower), and the Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, 2.9% lower). This clustering shows that the GTX 1080 sits in a very competitive mid-to-high tier, where small percentage differences separate it from several modern cards. The Quadro K5100M, by contrast, has an average score of 10,043, placing it at the 48th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, 0.3% higher), the Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, 0.3% lower), the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 0.8% lower), and the Quadro 6000 (9,846, 2% lower). So while the K5100M is not the slowest GPU in the database, it clearly operates in a much lower performance tier than the GTX 1080, despite the fact that both cards carry 8 GB of memory.

The head-to-head results also highlight the asymmetry in the benchmark record. The GTX 1080 has been tested across a much broader set of workloads, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, PassMark G2D, PassMark G3D, and PassMark GPU Compute, in addition to the two Geekbench tests. The Quadro K5100M only has Geekbench Metal and OpenCL results recorded. This means any comparison beyond those two tests must rely on the specification differences and the aggregate performance metrics rather than direct measurements. The available data, however, is unambiguous: in the only two tests where both GPUs were measured under identical conditions, the GTX 1080 dominates by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 wins with a score of 23,824 versus the Quadro K5100M’s 8,315, a 186.5% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1080 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1080 scores 51,204 points compared to the Quadro K5100M’s 11,771 points, which is a 335% improvement.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GTX 1080 has an average benchmark score of 11,960, while the Quadro K5100M has an average score of 10,043.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 1080’s closest rival is the GeForce GTX 960A, which is only 0.3% faster, while the Quadro K5100M’s closest rival is the Radeon R9 M375, also 0.3% faster. The GTX 1080 sits at the 51st percentile, and the Quadro K5100M sits at the 48th percentile.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory size?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of memory, but the GTX 1080 uses GDDR5X with a bandwidth of 320.3 GB/s, while the Quadro K5100M uses GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 1080 has 7,200 million transistors on a 16 nm process, while the Quadro K5100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 28 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The usage split is straightforward given the benchmark data. The GTX 1080 wins every recorded head-to-head test, so any workload that relies on Metal or OpenCL acceleration will favor it heavily. For users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL, the GTX 1080 is the clear choice: its 335% lead means tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or data-parallel processing will finish in a fraction of the time. The Metal test, which is common in macOS environments and certain creative applications, also shows a 186.5% advantage, making the GTX 1080 the stronger option for Metal-based workflows as well.

The Quadro K5100M, despite losing both head-to-head tests, still has a role in specific scenarios. Its TDP is only 100 W, compared to the GTX 1080’s 180 W, so it fits into MXM modules with no external power connectors. This makes it suitable for mobile workstations where power and space are constrained. The GTX 1080 requires a dual-slot design, an 8-pin power connector, and a 450 W power supply, which is typical for a desktop card. The Quadro K5100M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs indicate it is designed for laptops or compact systems, not traditional desktop towers. So while the GTX 1080 wins on raw performance, the K5100M wins on form factor and power efficiency for portable professional use.

In terms of aggregate performance, the GTX 1080’s average score of 11,960 is 19.1% higher than the Quadro K5100M’s 10,043. This difference is consistent with the head-to-head results, albeit compressed because the average includes tests with different workloads. The GTX 1080 also has a higher percentile ranking (51st versus 48th), meaning it outperforms a larger share of the GPUs in the database. For any application that can use the GPU’s compute capabilities, the GTX 1080 is the better performer. The only reason to choose the Quadro K5100M is if the system requires a low-power MXM module with no auxiliary power, and even then, the performance gap is substantial.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification that affects performance. The GTX 1080 is built on a 16 nm process, while the Quadro K5100M uses a 28 nm process. That process advantage allows the GTX 1080 to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per mm². The Quadro K5100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 1080’s die is only slightly larger (314 mm² versus 294 mm²) but contains more than twice as many transistors.

Clock speeds also differ dramatically. The GTX 1080 has a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock of 1733 MHz, while the Quadro K5100M runs at a fixed 771 MHz for both base and boost. That is a 108% higher base clock and a 125% higher boost clock for the GTX 1080. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: the GTX 1080’s memory runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective data rate, while the Quadro K5100M’s memory runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective. The memory type is GDDR5X on the GTX 1080 versus GDDR5 on the Quadro K5100M. Both have 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus, but the resulting bandwidth is 320.3 GB/s for the GTX 1080 and 115.2 GB/s for the Quadro K5100M, a 178% advantage for the newer card.

Compute resources are equally one-sided. The GTX 1080 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro K5100M has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1080’s pixel rate is 110.9 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTX 1080 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS. The GTX 1080 also has an FP16 rate of 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro K5100M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power consumption is one area where the Quadro K5100M is more favorable. Its TDP is 100 W, compared to the GTX 1080’s 180 W. The GTX 1080 requires a dual-slot cooler, a single 8-pin power connector, and a 450 W power supply. The Quadro K5100M is an MXM module with no power connectors, which means it draws power directly from the laptop’s motherboard. Physical dimensions reflect this: the GTX 1080 is 267 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, while the Quadro K5100M has no recorded dimensions because it is a mobile module.

Output options also differ. The GTX 1080 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K5100M’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1080 and MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro K5100M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 1080 uses the Pascal architecture (chip GP104), while the Quadro K5100M uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK104). Pascal is a newer generation, designed for higher clock speeds and better energy efficiency on a 16 nm TSMC process. Kepler, introduced earlier, uses a 28 nm process and has a different shader and scheduling design. The GTX 1080’s Pascal architecture also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5100M’s Kepler architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX 12 feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_0) means the GTX 1080 can handle more advanced DX12 features, such as conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, which may matter in modern games and compute workloads.

The transistor density difference (22.9M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm²) is a direct result of the process node shrink. Pascal’s higher density allows for more shading units and TMUs in a similar die area. The GTX 1080’s shading unit count is 2560 versus 1536, a 67% increase, and its TMU count is 160 versus 128, a 25% increase. The ROP count doubles from 32 to 64. These architectural changes, combined with the clock speed advantage, explain the large performance deltas in the head-to-head tests.

The memory architecture also differs. The GTX 1080 uses GDDR5X, which is a higher-bandwidth memory type than the GDDR5 used in the Quadro K5100M. Even though both have a 256-bit bus, the GTX 1080’s memory operates at a much higher effective data rate (10 Gbps versus 3.6 Gbps), resulting in 320.3 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. This is critical for compute-heavy workloads that saturate memory bandwidth.

The Quadro K5100M, being a mobile workstation GPU, has a different design goal. Its Kepler architecture was optimized for lower power consumption (100 W TDP) and integration into MXM modules. It has no external power connectors and relies on the host system’s power delivery. The GTX 1080, as a desktop enthusiast card, prioritizes raw performance with a 180 W TDP and requires a dedicated power connector. The production status of both is end-of-life, but the release dates show a generation gap: the Quadro K5100M was released in July 2013, while the GTX 1080 was released in May 2016. The Quadro K5100M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GTX 1080’s predecessor is GeForce 900 and its successor is GeForce 20. These lineage differences underscore that the two cards target entirely different market segments and time periods.