NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA GPU design, separated by roughly two and a half years of architectural evolution. The GTX 560 Ti ships with Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 40 nm process, while the K5100M adopts the Kepler architecture on a more advanced 28 nm node. With only one shared benchmark result available, the comparison hinges on a single Geekbench OpenCL score, where the Quadro K5100M posts 11,771 points against the GTX 560 Ti’s 10,690, a 9.2% advantage. However, the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story about where each card excels, and the data invites a closer look at how architectural shifts affect real-world performance characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear single winner in the head-to-head comparison. The Quadro K5100M takes the only available test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 11,771 versus 10,690 for the GTX 560 Ti. That 9.2% margin places the K5100M ahead in compute-oriented workloads, which aligns with its mobile workstation positioning. The GTX 560 Ti, meanwhile, does not win any benchmark in this dataset, but its specification sheet suggests strengths in different areas — particularly memory bandwidth and raw clock speeds on older architecture.

Looking at percentile rankings across all GPUs, the GTX 560 Ti sits at the 49th percentile with an average benchmark score of 10,690, while the K5100M lands at the 48th percentile with an average of 10,043. This is a curious inversion: the K5100M wins the head-to-head OpenCL test but has a lower aggregate average because its Geekbench Metal score of 8,315 drags down the mean. The GTX 560 Ti, with only one benchmark entry, avoids that penalty. For users focused purely on OpenCL compute, the K5100M is the stronger pick. For those who value consistency across different API workloads, the GTX 560 Ti’s single score provides less information but also less downside.

The K5100M’s wins extend to raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s and texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s dwarf the GTX 560 Ti’s 13.17 GPixel/s and 52.67 GTexel/s, respectively. These figures suggest the Kepler card handles fill-rate-bound scenarios far better. The GTX 560 Ti, however, counters with a higher memory clock of 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) and greater bandwidth at 128.3 GB/s against 115.2 GB/s. This gives the older card an edge in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, despite its lower compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The GTX 560 Ti uses the GF114 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC with 1,950 million transistors packed into a 332 mm² die. The K5100M employs the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process, fitting 3,540 million transistors into a smaller 294 mm² die. This represents a transistor density jump from 5.9M per mm² on Fermi to 12.0M per mm² on Kepler — a doubling of density that explains how Kepler fits nearly twice the transistors into less silicon area.

The shading unit count tells a similar story of generational leap. The GTX 560 Ti offers 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K5100M quadruples the shading units to 1,536, doubles the TMUs to 128, and keeps 32 ROPs. This massive increase in parallel compute resources directly translates to the K5100M’s FP32 throughput of 2.369 TFLOPS, nearly double the GTX 560 Ti’s 1,263.4 GFLOPS. The Kepler architecture’s design philosophy prioritized raw compute density, and the numbers reflect that.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 560 Ti ships with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus. The K5100M’s eightfold memory capacity advantage is critical for workstation workloads like large texture sets or compute buffers. Yet the GTX 560 Ti’s faster memory clock gives it higher bandwidth, creating an interesting trade-off: the K5100M has more capacity but moves data slower, while the GTX 560 Ti has less capacity but moves it faster.

Power and form factor differences are equally pronounced. The GTX 560 Ti draws 170 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, uses 2x 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU. The K5100M, being a mobile MXM module, draws only 100 W with no power connectors and is portable-device dependent for display outputs. The GTX 560 Ti interfaces via PCIe 2.0 x16, while the K5100M uses MXM-B (3.0). This positions the K5100M as a laptop-oriented solution, whereas the GTX 560 Ti is a desktop card with dual DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K5100M wins decisively. The K5100M scores 11,771 against the GTX 560 Ti’s 10,690, yielding a deltaPct of -9.2% for the GTX 560 Ti — meaning the GTX 560 Ti trails by 9.2%. This aligns with the K5100M’s superior FP32 throughput and shading unit count, suggesting the Kepler architecture extracts more compute performance per clock cycle despite its lower memory bandwidth.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals adds depth. The GTX 560 Ti’s 10,690 OpenCL score places it within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) and 0.7% below the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761). It also edges out the AMD Radeon R9 M275X by 1% (10,582) but trails the AMD Radeon Pro 450 by 1.1% (10,804). This tight clustering suggests the GTX 560 Ti remains competitive with much newer hardware in OpenCL workloads, despite its 2011 origins.

The K5100M’s 11,771 OpenCL score, by contrast, sits 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013) — though these rival comparisons use the K5100M’s average score of 10,043, not its OpenCL-only result. The K5100M’s nearest rivals also include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, deltaPct 0.8%) and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, deltaPct 2%). This indicates the K5100M’s average performance sits in a crowded mid-range field, but its OpenCL peak is notably higher.

The K5100M’s additional Metal benchmark score of 8,315 reveals a significant gap between API implementations. That Metal score is roughly 29% lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting the Kepler architecture favors OpenCL compute or that the Metal driver for this mobile GPU is less optimized. The GTX 560 Ti has no Metal score, so a cross-API comparison is impossible, but the K5100M’s variance across APIs is worth noting for users targeting specific frameworks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but qualified winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M dominates in raw compute benchmarks and throughput metrics. Its 9.2% OpenCL lead over the GTX 560 Ti, combined with 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 8 GB of memory, and significantly higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads. The 28 nm Kepler architecture’s efficiency — delivering nearly double the performance at 100 W versus 170 W — further cements its advantage.

However, the GTX 560 Ti is not without merit. Its higher memory bandwidth (128.3 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s) and faster memory clock (4 Gbps vs 3.6 Gbps effective) suggest it could outperform the K5100M in bandwidth-bound scenarios, particularly at lower resolutions where memory capacity matters less. The GTX 560 Ti’s 49th percentile ranking versus the K5100M’s 48th percentile also indicates that, on average, the older card holds its own across the broader GPU landscape.

Users should pick the K5100M if they need maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity for workstation datasets, or mobile form factor compatibility. The GTX 560 Ti makes sense for desktop builds where bandwidth-sensitive gaming or compute tasks take priority, and where the dual-slot, 170 W power draw is acceptable. The K5100M’s lack of a launch MSRP in the data, versus the GTX 560 Ti’s 249 USD launch MSRP, means pricing comparison is impossible — but the performance gap suggests the K5100M earned its workstation premium.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins with a score of 11,771 against the GeForce GTX 560 Ti’s 10,690, a 9.2% advantage.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 560 Ti has higher memory bandwidth at 128.3 GB/s, while the K5100M provides 115.2 GB/s. The GTX 560 Ti also runs its memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the K5100M’s 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The K5100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 560 Ti has 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die. This gives the K5100M a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Q: Does the K5100M have better fill rates?

A: Yes. The K5100M achieves 24.67 GPixel/s pixel rate and 98.69 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the GTX 560 Ti’s 13.17 GPixel/s and 52.67 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The K5100M has 1,536 shading units, while the GTX 560 Ti has 384. The K5100M also doubles the TMU count to 128 versus 64.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life. The GTX 560 Ti released on 2011-01-24, and the K5100M released on 2013-07-22.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 294 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 8 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 64 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.17 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.67 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,263.4 GFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 170 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | N/A |

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

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-01-24 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 249 USD | N/A |