NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, but the story is more nuanced when considering the specific workloads and platforms each card was designed for. The K5100M is a mobile workstation part built on a modern 28 nm process, while the GTX 465 is a desktop gaming card from the Fermi generation on a larger 40 nm node. Their benchmark scores, thermal envelopes, and memory configurations tell a tale of divergent priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M holds a decisive lead, with an average benchmark score of 10043 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465’s 9294. This represents a 26.7% advantage in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, where the K5100M scored 11771 versus 9294 for the GTX 465.

Q: How does the GTX 465 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 465 sits at a 46th percentile versus all GPUs, with its average score of 9294 placing it nearly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9302, a -0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313, a -0.2% delta). It is slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (9273, +0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9221, +0.8% delta).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between these two cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, a massive amount compared to the GTX 465’s 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both utilize a 256-bit memory bus, but the K5100M’s higher memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) yields a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.7 GB/s for the GTX 465.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density, and what does that indicate?

A: The Quadro K5100M, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The GTX 465, on the older 40 nm node, has 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in only 5.9 million transistors per mm². This indicates the K5100M is a far more compact and efficient design.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the GTX 465 wins?

A: No. In the provided head-to-head benchmark data, the Quadro K5100M wins the only test conducted (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 26.7% delta. The wins tally shows 1 win for the K5100M and 0 wins for the GTX 465.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GeForce GTX 465 draws significantly more at 200 W. The GTX 465 also requires two 6-pin power connectors and suggests a 550 W power supply, whereas the K5100M uses none due to its MXM Module slot design.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two NVIDIA GPUs is architectural. The Quadro K5100M is based on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 465 relies on the GF100 chip from the older Fermi architecture. This generational leap is visible in nearly every metric. The K5100M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, compared to the GTX 465’s 40 nm process, which explains the dramatic difference in die size: 294 mm² for the K5100M versus 529 mm² for the GTX 465, even though the K5100M contains more transistors (3,540 million vs 3,100 million).

The compute core configuration shows a stark contrast. The K5100M features 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The GTX 465, in comparison, is built with only 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This 4.4x difference in shading units and nearly 3x difference in TMUs directly translates to the K5100M’s superior throughput rates: a pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s and texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s, versus the GTX 465’s 13.38 GPixel/s and 26.75 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) follows suit, with the K5100M delivering 2.369 TFLOPS compared to the GTX 465’s 855.4 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture also differs. While both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, the K5100M’s 8 GB capacity is eight times larger than the GTX 465’s 1 GB. The memory clock is also higher on the K5100M (900 MHz / 3.6 Gbps effective versus 802 MHz / 3.2 Gbps effective), leading to a bandwidth advantage of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.7 GB/s. The K5100M also supports newer API features, including Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the GTX 465 has no Vulkan support listed. Both share DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support. The GTX 465 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches), while the K5100M is an MXM Module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, making it a mobile-only solution.

The Verdict

The data points overwhelmingly toward the Quadro K5100M as the superior performer. With a 26.7% lead in the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) and an average benchmark score that is 8.1% higher (10043 vs 9294), the K5100M is the clear choice for raw compute power. Its 8 GB memory capacity and modern Kepler architecture make it far better suited for large datasets and contemporary workloads. The GTX 465’s only listed advantage is its launch MSRP of 279 USD, which is a historical figure from 2010. For anyone choosing between these two today, the K5100M is the only rational pick for performance, provided the platform is a compatible MXM-based laptop. The GTX 465, while a desktop card, is constrained by its 1 GB memory and older Fermi design, which severely limits its modern usability.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK104 | GF100 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 1024 MB |

| Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 102.7 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 352 |

| TMUs | 128 | 44 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.67 GPixel/s | 13.38 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 98.69 GTexel/s | 26.75 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.369 TFLOPS | 855.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | Not listed |

| Length | Not listed | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2010-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 279 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the Quadro K5100M. The K5100M scored 11771, while the GTX 465 managed 9294. This yields a delta of 26.7%, meaning the K5100M is over a quarter faster in this compute-oriented test. This substantial margin is hardly surprising given the raw specifications: the K5100M has 4.4x more shading units and over 2.7x the FP32 throughput. The GTX 465’s score of 9294 places it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5100M’s 11771 OpenCL score contributes to its higher 48th percentile average. Even when comparing average benchmark scores across all tests, the K5100M’s 10043 is a full 749 points higher. This gap is consistent with the K5100M’s rival set, which includes the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10013, a +0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959, a +0.8% delta), showing it competes with a newer class of mobile GPUs. In contrast, the GTX 465’s rivals are lower-tier parts like the GTX 850M and GTX 960, confirming its lower performance bracket.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M wins in every measurable performance category. Its 26.7% lead in OpenCL compute makes it the obvious choice for general-purpose GPU computing, machine learning inference, and any task that leverages the 1536 shading units. The 8 GB memory capacity is a massive advantage for workloads that require large framebuffers, such as high-resolution texture rendering, complex 3D modeling, or data-parallel processing that exceeds 1 GB. The K5100M also wins on efficiency, drawing half the power (100 W vs 200 W) and requiring no external power connectors, which is a direct benefit of its modern 28 nm Kepler architecture. Its higher pixel rate (24.67 GPixel/s) and texture rate (98.69 GTexel/s) also indicate better fill-rate performance in graphics-heavy applications.

The GTX 465, conversely, has only one historical advantage from the data: its launch MSRP of 279 USD. However, this is a 2010 price point with no current relevance. From a pure specification standpoint, the GTX 465 wins on nothing except physical size, being a standard dual-slot PCIe card that is easier to install in a desktop tower than the K5100M’s proprietary MXM module. The GTX 465’s higher TDP of 200 W and requirement for a 550 W power supply are drawbacks, not wins. In terms of use cases, the GTX 465 is strictly inferior for any modern task. Its 1 GB memory is a hard limit for current games or professional applications, and its older Fermi architecture lacks Vulkan support, making it incompatible with newer graphics APIs. The data suggests the GTX 465 is a relic of a bygone era, while the K5100M, despite also being end-of-life, offers a much more capable and future-proof feature set.