NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two NVIDIA cards into clearly different roles. The GeForce GTX 560 is a desktop-first gaming graphics card from the GeForce 500 generation, built for raw rasterization throughput in a full-size PCIe slot. The Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation part from the Quadro Kepler-M family, designed to fit into laptops as an MXM module. Their single head-to-head OpenCL result shows the Quadro edging ahead, but the story is less about one being faster and more about where each was meant to live.

For pure compute workloads using OpenCL, the Quadro K4100M wins the only directly comparable test. It scores 9,149 against the GTX 560's 9,058, a margin of about 1%. That is a narrow win, but it is consistent with the Quadro's architecture and driver focus. The GTX 560 has no recorded wins in the database, so every measurable comparison favors the Quadro. However, the GTX 560's average benchmark score of 9,058 is actually higher than the Quadro's average of 7,906, because the Quadro's average is dragged down by a separate Metal benchmark result of 6,662, a test the GTX 560 does not have recorded.

The GTX 560 holds the advantage in memory bandwidth. Its 128.0 GB/s exceeds the Quadro's 102.4 GB/s, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution framebuffer operations. The Quadro counters with four times the memory capacity, 4 GB versus 1 GB, and a much larger shader array, 1,152 shading units against 336. That shader count difference explains why the Quadro's FP32 throughput of 1.627 TFLOPS is about 50% higher than the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS, even though the GTX 560 runs its memory faster.

Choose the GTX 560 if the task is classic desktop gaming with high memory bandwidth per byte. Choose the Quadro K4100M if the task is mobile workstation compute, where the larger shader count, higher FP32 rate, and 4 GB framebuffer matter more than raw bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and different design philosophies. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a newer 28 nm process, also at TSMC. That process shrink explains a lot: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 560 fits 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die, at just 5.9M per mm². The Kepler chip is denser and more efficient per square millimeter.

Clock behavior differs too. The GTX 560 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz, which translates to 4 Gbps effective. The Quadro K4100M runs a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, with a slower memory clock of 800 MHz, or 3.2 Gbps effective. The Quadro compensates for lower memory clocks with a wider shader array and higher core clock stability, since boost never varies from base.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The GTX 560 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 128.0 GB/s. The Quadro has 4096 MB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only reaches 102.4 GB/s due to the lower memory clock. Both use GDDR5, but the GTX 560's higher clock speed gives it the bandwidth edge.

The compute resources scale heavily in the Quadro's favor. It has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate favors the Quadro at 16.94 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it at 67.78 GTexel/s versus 45.36 GTexel/s. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical design could not be more different. The GTX 560 draws 150 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 450 W suggested power supply. It is a desktop card, 210 mm or 8.3 inches long, with outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The Quadro K4100M draws only 100 W, uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. It has no suggested PSU because it is not a desktop card at all.

API support shows a generational gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the GTX 560 lists no Vulkan support. That matters for modern compute or rendering pipelines that rely on Vulkan.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K4100M scores 9,149, and the GTX 560 scores 9,058. The Quadro wins by 1%. This is a small margin, well within run-to-run variance for many workloads, but it is the only recorded head-to-head result, and it favors the Quadro.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 560's average score of 9,058 places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9,037, just 0.2% behind; the GeForce GTX 660 scores 9,022, 0.4% behind; the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918, 1.6% behind. Only the AMD Radeon 890M beats it among these, at 9,210, 1.7% ahead. The GTX 560 sits in a dense pack where a few percent separates many cards.

The Quadro K4100M's average score of 7,906 places it at the 41st percentile, below the GTX 560's percentile despite winning the direct OpenCL test. That is because the Quadro's average includes its Metal score of 6,662, which is much lower than its OpenCL score. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 at 7,925, just 0.2% ahead; the Quadro P5000 at 8,039, 1.7% ahead; the GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040, 1.7% ahead; and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8,053, 1.8% ahead. The Quadro is competitive with older desktop cards despite being a mobile part.

The big takeaway from the numbers: in the one test where both cards appear, the Quadro wins, but by a hair. The GTX 560's higher average score comes from having only one benchmark recorded, not from being faster across the board. If you weight the Quadro's OpenCL result alone, it is the faster compute card.

The Verdict

Pick the GTX 560 if you need a desktop card with higher memory bandwidth and do not care about Vulkan support. Its 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, dual-slot cooling, and 2x DVI plus mini-HDMI outputs suit a traditional desktop build. It also has the higher percentile ranking, 45th versus 41st, and the higher average benchmark score, 9,058 versus 7,906. It is end-of-life, launched in May 2011 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

Pick the Quadro K4100M if you need a mobile workstation GPU with more compute throughput and four times the memory. Its 1,152 shading units, 1.627 TFLOPS FP32, and 4 GB framebuffer make it the better choice for laptop-class workloads that need shader muscle. It also adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the GTX 560 lacks entirely. It consumes less power, 100 W versus 150 W, and needs no external power connectors. It launched in July 2013 with a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD.

The data does not support calling either card a clear winner. The GTX 560 wins on bandwidth, average score, and percentile. The Quadro wins on the only direct head-to-head test, shader count, FP32 throughput, memory capacity, and API support. The choice depends entirely on form factor and workload.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 560 scores 9,058. The Quadro wins by 1%.

Q: Why does the GTX 560 have a higher average benchmark score than the Quadro K4100M?

A: The GTX 560's average is 9,058 from a single OpenCL test. The Quadro's average is 7,906 because it includes a Metal score of 6,662 alongside its OpenCL score of 9,149.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, while the GTX 560 has 336. That is a 3.4x difference in shader count.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4100M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the GTX 560 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 560 has 128.0 GB/s bandwidth with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro K4100M has 102.4 GB/s with 4096 MB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 560 draws 150 W, needs a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 450 W suggested power supply. The Quadro K4100M draws 100 W, uses an MXM module, and requires no power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective | 706 MHz base / 706 MHz boost, 800 MHz / 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 1152 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 56 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.34 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.36 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,088.6 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

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

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

| Vulkan | None | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-05-16 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 1,499 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |