NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target different segments of the market. The GTX 560M belongs to the consumer GeForce 500M generation, while the K2100M is part of the professional Quadro Kepler-M series. The database records a single direct head-to-head benchmark between these two, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 560M scored 4855 against the K2100M’s 4587, a 5.8% advantage for the older consumer part. However, the K2100M has additional benchmark entries in Metal and Vulkan, which the GTX 560M lacks, indicating a broader software compatibility profile. Their average benchmark scores differ significantly: the GTX 560M averages 4855, placing it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2100M averages 4151, placing it in the 25th percentile. This page breaks down the recorded data to clarify where each GPU wins, how their architectures differ, and which one is the better choice for specific workloads based solely on the measurements in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The direct comparison from the database shows a narrow win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 560M scores 4855, while the Quadro K2100M scores 4587. That is a 5.8% delta in favor of the GTX 560M. This is the only head-to-head result recorded, so any assertion of overall superiority must be tempered by the fact that the K2100M was tested in three separate APIs while the GTX 560M only has one recorded benchmark.

The K2100M, however, wins in the breadth of its recorded performance data. It has scores for Geekbench Metal (3524) and Geekbench Vulkan (4343), in addition to its OpenCL result. The GTX 560M has no entries for Metal or Vulkan, which suggests that the K2100M is the only one of the two with confirmed support or measurable performance in those modern compute interfaces. For users running workloads that leverage Metal or Vulkan, the K2100M is the only option with recorded numbers.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 560M leads with 4855 against the K2100M’s 4151. That is a 704-point gap, or approximately 17% higher average score for the GTX 560M. The percentile rankings reflect this, with the GTX 560M at the 28th percentile and the K2100M at the 25th percentile. The nearest rivals for the GTX 560M include the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (average score 4844, a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (average score 4867, a -0.2% delta), showing that the GTX 560M sits almost exactly in the middle of a tight cluster of similar performers. The K2100M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (average score 4170, a -0.4% delta) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (average score 4075, a 1.9% delta), indicating that the K2100M is positioned slightly above those integrated and low-end discrete solutions.

In summary, the GTX 560M wins the raw compute race in the only test both share, while the K2100M wins on API coverage, with three distinct benchmark results versus one. There is no scenario where the K2100M beats the GTX 560M in OpenCL, but there is also no scenario where the GTX 560M can claim any performance in Metal or Vulkan because no data exists.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GTX 560M is based on the GF116 chip, which uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The K2100M uses the GK106S chip, built on the Kepler architecture. This is a fundamental split: Fermi 2.0 is an older design, while Kepler is a newer, more efficient microarchitecture from NVIDIA.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The GTX 560M is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the K2100M uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller process node for the K2100M allows for a higher transistor density. The K2100M packs 2,540 million transistors into a die size of 221 mm², resulting in a density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 560M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The K2100M has over twice the transistor count despite a slightly smaller die.

Memory configurations also diverge. The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, producing a bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s. The K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s. The GTX 560M offers higher memory bandwidth due to the wider bus, but the K2100M has more total memory capacity. The memory clocks are recorded differently: the GTX 560M runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective, while the K2100M runs at 752 MHz with 3 Gbps effective. The K2100M has a higher memory clock speed, but the narrower bus limits its overall bandwidth.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the K2100M. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations units (ROPs). The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The K2100M has three times the shading units and 50% more TMUs, though it has fewer ROPs. This difference in shading units drives the theoretical FP32 performance: the K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 560M delivers 595.2 GFLOPS. The K2100M is approximately 29% higher in raw floating-point throughput.

Clock speeds are not fully recorded for the GTX 560M, as its base and boost clocks are listed as null. The K2100M has a base and boost clock of 667 MHz, which is a fixed clock with no boost variation. The GTX 560M’s pixel rate is 6.200 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 24.80 GTexel/s, while the K2100M achieves 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, respectively. The K2100M leads in both fill rates despite its lower ROP count, which is a direct consequence of its higher clock speed and greater shading resources.

Power consumption favors the K2100M. The K2100M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GTX 560M has a TDP of 75 W. Both use MXM modules, but the bus interfaces differ: the GTX 560M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the K2100M uses MXM-A (3.0). Neither has power connectors, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent. API support shows the K2100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 560M has no recorded Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scored 4855, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scored 4587. The delta is 5.8% in favor of the GTX 560M. This result is notable because the K2100M has significantly more shading units (576 vs. 192) and higher theoretical FP32 performance (768.4 GFLOPS vs. 595.2 GFLOPS), yet it still loses the OpenCL test. The GTX 560M’s higher memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs. 48.13 GB/s) and wider 192-bit bus may partially explain this outcome, as OpenCL workloads often stress memory throughput alongside compute.

For the K2100M, the database records two additional benchmarks that the GTX 560M cannot be compared against. In Geekbench Metal, the K2100M scores 3524. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 4343. These scores are lower than its OpenCL result of 4587, indicating that the K2100M performs best under OpenCL among the three APIs tested. The GTX 560M has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan scores, so no head-to-head analysis is possible for those tests.

The average benchmark score for the GTX 560M is 4855, which is identical to its single OpenCL score. The K2100M’s average is 4151, which is the mean of its three benchmark results (3524, 4587, and 4343). The GTX 560M’s average is 704 points higher, a 17% advantage. The percentile rankings confirm the same ordering: 28th percentile for the GTX 560M versus 25th percentile for the K2100M.

The nearest rival data provides context. The GTX 560M’s OpenCL score of 4855 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (score 4844) and within -0.8% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (score 4893). The K2100M’s average score of 4151 is within -0.4% of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (score 4170) and within 1.9% of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (score 4075). These comparisons show that the GTX 560M competes with a slightly higher tier of mobile GPUs than the K2100M, based on recorded averages.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587. The GTX 560M leads by 5.8%.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the K2100M has a Vulkan API version of 1.2.175 and a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4343. The GTX 560M has no recorded Vulkan support or Vulkan benchmark score.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 560M has an average benchmark score of 4855, which is significantly higher than the K2100M’s average of 4151. The GTX 560M ranks in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2100M ranks in the 25th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, which is three times the 192 shading units found in the GTX 560M. The K2100M also has 48 TMUs versus 32 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs versus 24 ROPs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 560M has a memory bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s, while the K2100M has a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s. The GTX 560M uses a 192-bit bus, while the K2100M uses a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has lower power consumption?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W, which is lower than the GTX 560M’s TDP of 75 W.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is the faster GPU in the only test that both share. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4855 beats the K2100M’s 4587 by 5.8%, and its average benchmark score of 4855 is 17% higher than the K2100M’s 4151. The GTX 560M also has higher memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs. 48.13 GB/s) and a wider memory bus (192-bit vs. 128-bit), which are critical for memory-bound workloads. For any task that relies on OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 560M is the clear winner from these measurements.

The Quadro K2100M, however, has advantages that are not captured in a single head-to-head score. It supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has measurable performance in Metal (3524) and Vulkan (4343), while the GTX 560M has no recorded scores in those APIs. This makes the K2100M the only viable choice for applications that require Vulkan or Metal acceleration, as the GTX 560M cannot even be validated in those environments. The K2100M also has a lower TDP (55 W vs. 75 W), which may be preferable in thermally constrained mobile chassis. Additionally, the K2100M has more shading units (576 vs. 192) and higher theoretical FP32 performance (768.4 GFLOPS vs. 595.2 GFLOPS), despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

For users who prioritize raw OpenCL throughput, the GTX 560M is the better pick. For users who need Vulkan or Metal support, or who value lower power draw, the K2100M is the only option with recorded data. The GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile, near peers like the GeForce 940MX and the Radeon R6 M255DX, while the K2100M sits at the 25th percentile, near the Radeon R5 M330 and the Intel HD Graphics 630. Neither GPU is a high performer by modern standards, but the GTX 560M holds the edge in the compute test that matters most for this comparison.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, as recorded in the database:

• Chip: GF116 (GTX 560M) vs. GK106S (K2100M)
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 (GTX 560M) vs. Kepler (K2100M)
• Generation: GeForce 500M (GTX 560M) vs. Quadro Kepler-M, Kx100M (K2100M)
• Process Node: 40 nm (GTX 560M) vs. 28 nm (K2100M)
• Transistors: 1,170 million (GTX 560M) vs. 2,540 million (K2100M)
• Die Size: 238 mm² (GTX 560M) vs. 221 mm² (K2100M)
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² (GTX 560M) vs. 11.5M / mm² (K2100M)
• Base Clock: null (GTX 560M) vs. 667 MHz (K2100M)
• Boost Clock: null (GTX 560M) vs. 667 MHz (K2100M)
• Memory Clock: 625 MHz, 2.5 Gbps effective (GTX 560M) vs. 752 MHz, 3 Gbps effective (K2100M)
• Memory Size: 1536 MB (GTX 560M) vs. 2 GB (K2100M)
• Memory Bus Width: 192 bit (GTX 560M) vs. 128 bit (K2100M)
• Memory Bandwidth: 60.00 GB/s (GTX 560M) vs. 48.13 GB/s (K2100M)
• Shading Units: 192 (GTX 560M) vs. 576 (K2100M)
• TMUs: 32 (GTX 560M) vs. 48 (K2100M)
• ROPs: 24 (GTX 560M) vs. 16 (K2100M)
• Pixel Rate: 6.200 GPixel/s (GTX 560M) vs. 8.004 GPixel/s (K2100M)
• Texture Rate: 24.80 GTexel/s (GTX 560M) vs. 32.02 GTexel/s (K2100M)
• FP32 Performance: 595.2 GFLOPS (GTX 560M) vs. 768.4 GFLOPS (K2100M)
• TDP: 75 W (GTX 560M) vs. 55 W (K2100M)
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) (GTX 560M) vs. MXM-A (3.0) (K2100M)
• Vulkan Support: null (GTX 560M) vs. 1.2.175 (K2100M)
• Release Date: 2011-05-29 (GTX 560M) vs. 2013-07-22 (K2100M)
• Predecessor: GeForce 400M (GTX 560M) vs. Quadro Fermi-M (K2100M)
• Successor: GeForce 600M (GTX 560M) vs. Quadro Maxwell-M (K2100M)
• Average Benchmark Score: 4855 (GTX 560M) vs. 4151 (K2100M)
• Percentile vs. All GPUs: 28 (GTX 560M) vs. 25 (K2100M)
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 4855 (GTX 560M) vs. 4587 (K2100M)

Both GPUs share the same manufacturer, foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR5), slot width (MXM Module), power connector requirement (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), DirectX support (12, 11_0), and OpenGL support (4.6). Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.