NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.9% higher than the GeForce GTX 550 Ti's score of 5731. The Quadro wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: How do the architectures differ between these two cards?

A: The GTX 550 Ti uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process with the GF116 chip, while the Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process with the GK104 chip. The Quadro also has roughly three times the transistors and a higher transistor density.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs offer?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 98.50 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, along with a higher memory clock of 3.2 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), compared to the GTX 550 Ti's 192 shading units and 32 TMUs. The Quadro also has 32 ROPs versus 24 on the GTX 550 Ti.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a TDP of 116 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a 1x 6-pin power connector. The Quadro K3100M has a much lower TDP of 75 W and uses no power connectors, as it is an MXM module.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K3100M lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.175). The GTX 550 Ti has no Vulkan support listed, though both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA GPUs come from different architectural generations, and that difference shows throughout their designs. The GeForce GTX 550 Ti is built on Fermi 2.0, using the GF116 chip manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process. The Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process. This process shrink allows the Quadro to pack 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 550 Ti contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density reflects this: the Quadro reaches 12.0M transistors per mm² versus 4.9M per mm² for the GTX 550 Ti.

The compute resources scale dramatically between them. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shading units and a 2x difference in texture units and ROPs. The pixel rate and texture rate tell the same story: the Quadro achieves 11.30 GPixel/s and 45.18 GTexel/s, while the GTX 550 Ti manages 7.200 GPixel/s and 28.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the Quadro at 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture changes as well. The GTX 550 Ti uses a 192-bit bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5, running at 4.1 Gbps effective and delivering 98.50 GB/s. The Quadro K3100M uses a wider 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 at 3.2 Gbps effective, resulting in 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has more capacity and slightly more bandwidth, though its memory clock is lower. The base clock on the Quadro is 706 MHz (with no boost above that), while the GTX 550 Ti does not list a base clock in the database.

Physical and power characteristics also separate them. The GTX 550 Ti is a dual-slot card, 210 mm long (8.3 inches), with a 116 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin power connector. The Quadro K3100M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The display outputs differ too: the GTX 550 Ti has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the Quadro's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct benchmark comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K3100M scores 6154, and the GTX 550 Ti scores 5731. That puts the Quadro 6.9% ahead. In percentile terms, the GTX 550 Ti ranks at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M sits at the 30th percentile, despite its higher raw score in this test. This is because the Quadro's average benchmark score across all tests is 5154, pulled down by its lower Geekbench Metal score of 3823 and its Vulkan score of 5484.

The GTX 550 Ti's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, 0.2% behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (5712, 0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, 0.7% behind). The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, which is 1.9% ahead of the GTX 550 Ti. The Quadro K3100M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, 1.1% behind), and the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, 1.6% behind). The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, which is 1.8% behind the Quadro.

The data shows that the Quadro's OpenCL win is moderate, not decisive. A 6.9% gap is meaningful but not overwhelming. The GTX 550 Ti is competitive with much newer mobile GPUs in its own weight class, while the Quadro sits among mid-range mobile parts from its era. The Quadro's additional benchmark scores (Metal and Vulkan) are not compared directly against the GTX 550 Ti in the head-to-head, but they factor into its lower average score.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. Here is where they diverge:

• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 (GTX 550 Ti) versus Kepler (Quadro K3100M)
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million versus 3,540 million
• Die size: 238 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 4.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Memory clock: 4.1 Gbps effective versus 3.2 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus width: 192 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 98.50 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 192 versus 768
• TMUs: 32 versus 64
• ROPs: 24 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 7.200 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 28.80 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s
• FP32: 691.2 GFLOPS versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 116 W versus 75 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus MXM Module
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus portable device dependent
• Vulkan support: not listed versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2011-03-14 versus 2013-07-22
• Predecessor: GeForce 400 versus Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: GeForce 600 versus Quadro Maxwell-M
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD versus not listed

The GTX 550 Ti has no base clock listed, while the Quadro has a base and boost clock of 706 MHz. The Quadro also has no dimensions listed, while the GTX 550 Ti is 210 mm long (8.3 inches).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, taking the OpenCL test 6154 to 5731. It also has substantial architectural advantages: 4x the shading units, double the TMUs, 33% more ROPs, and a 57% higher FP32 throughput. Its 4 GB memory capacity is four times larger than the GTX 550 Ti's 1 GB, and its 256-bit bus provides more bandwidth on paper. The Quadro's lower TDP (75 W versus 116 W) makes it suitable for mobile workstations, and it is the only one of the two with Vulkan support. For compute-heavy tasks that use OpenCL, Vulkan, or Metal (the Quadro has scores for all three), the Quadro is the stronger part.

The GTX 550 Ti has its own advantages. It is a desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, dual-slot cooling, and standard display outputs (2x DVI and mini-HDMI), making it easier to integrate into a conventional desktop system. Its memory runs faster at 4.1 Gbps effective, which helps offset its narrower bus. It also has a higher percentile rank (33rd versus 30th), meaning it sits above a larger share of the overall GPU population despite losing the direct comparison. Its nearest rivals are all within 1.9% of its score, showing that it is a well-balanced performer relative to its peers. The GTX 550 Ti also has a listed launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the Quadro has none, though that is a historical reference point rather than a current market signal.

The GTX 550 Ti wins on integration simplicity for desktop builds. The Quadro wins on raw compute capability and efficiency per watt, given its higher performance at lower TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K3100M as the faster GPU in compute workloads. It leads by 6.9% in OpenCL, and its architecture is built for heavier parallel workloads with 768 shading units and 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. If the workload is OpenCL, Vulkan, or Metal, the Quadro is the better choice. It also offers 4 GB of memory, which matters for large datasets, and it does so at a lower TDP of 75 W.

The GTX 550 Ti is the better choice for a desktop system that needs standard PCIe integration, conventional display outputs, and a dual-slot form factor. It holds its own against its nearest rivals, with all of them within 1.9% of its OpenCL score. Its higher percentile rank (33 versus 30) indicates that it is a more representative mid-pack performer. The GTX 550 Ti is not a compute powerhouse, but it is a coherent desktop part with a known form factor and connector layout.

For a mobile workstation or any system that can accept an MXM module, the Quadro K3100M is the clear winner in this comparison. For a desktop build where the card must plug into a PCIe slot and drive DVI or HDMI displays, the GTX 550 Ti is the practical option. The benchmark results do not support calling the GTX 550 Ti the faster card, but they do support calling it the more adaptable desktop part. Choose based on the form factor and the workload: Quadro for compute and portability, GTX 550 Ti for standard desktop use.