NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they serve very different masters. The K3100M is a professional workstation part built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 560M is a consumer gaming part based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, but the story is more nuanced when you consider their intended roles. This analysis will break down their benchmark results, architectural differences, and specifications to help you understand which one suits a specific workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Quadro K3100M wins the only head-to-head test available. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the K3100M scores 6154, while the GTX 560M scores 4855. This represents a 26.8% advantage for the Quadro part. This single win gives the K3100M a 1-0 record in direct comparisons.

However, the GTX 560M is not without its own context. It holds a 28th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the K3100M sits at the 30th percentile. This means that while the K3100M is the faster card of the two, both are positioned in the lower-middle tier of the overall GPU landscape. The GTX 560M’s average benchmark score of 4855 is its only data point, and it is competitive with its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (deltaPct of 0.2% in its favor) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (deltaPct of -0.2%). In contrast, the K3100M’s average score of 5154 is only 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, placing it in a slightly higher performance bracket.

For a practical use-case split, the K3100M is the clear winner for any compute-heavy or professional application that leverages OpenCL, given its substantial lead. The GTX 560M, while slower in this specific metric, was designed for gaming in its era, and its performance profile should be considered within that context, even though the data here only covers compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance gap. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This newer, more efficient process allows for a significantly larger and more complex chip. The K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm².

The GeForce GTX 560M, in contrast, is based on the older GF116 chip and the Fermi 2.0 architecture. It uses a larger 40 nm process node from TSMC. This older process is less efficient, which is why the chip is smaller in terms of transistor count (1,170 million) despite having a relatively large die size of 238 mm². Its transistor density is just 4.9M / mm², a clear indication of the architectural generation gap.

These architectural differences have massive implications for core counts and capabilities. The K3100M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 560M has only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Kepler architecture in the K3100M is also more efficient per core, further widening the performance gap. Both parts support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K3100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the K3100M a more future-proof option for API compatibility.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the Quadro K3100M. With a score of 6154, it outperforms the GTX 560M’s 4855 by a margin of 26.8%. This is a substantial lead that indicates a significant difference in raw computational throughput, particularly for tasks that can leverage the GPU's parallel processing capabilities.

To put this in perspective, the K3100M’s score is also higher than its own average of 5154, suggesting it performs particularly well in this specific workload. The GTX 560M’s score of 4855 is its only benchmark, so it represents its peak known performance. In this single metric, the K3100M is not just slightly better; it is in a different performance class. This 26.8% delta is the kind of margin that would translate to noticeably faster rendering times, quicker simulation results, or smoother performance in GPU-accelerated applications. The data does not show any test where the GTX 560M wins, reinforcing the K3100M’s overall superiority in compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two mobile GPUs highlight their different design goals and capabilities. The most striking differences are in memory and core configuration.

Memory Configuration:

• The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.
• The GeForce GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s.

The K3100M’s larger memory pool and wider bus give it a massive advantage in bandwidth and capacity, which is critical for professional workloads like large texture sets or complex 3D models.

Core Configuration and Clock Speeds:

• The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its base and boost clocks are both 706 MHz. The memory clock is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).
• The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Its core clocks are listed as null, but its memory clock is 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

The K3100M’s raw core count is four times higher in shading units and double in TMUs, which directly translates to its higher compute performance.

Compute and Fill Rates:

• The K3100M achieves a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 1,084.4 GFLOPS.
• The GTX 560M achieves a pixel rate of 6.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.80 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 595.2 GFLOPS.

The K3100M is nearly twice as fast in every measurable throughput metric.

Power and Interface:

• Both are MXM Module slot width with None as their power connector, and have a TDP of 75 W.
• Both use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.
• Their display outputs are both "Portable Device Dependent".

The identical TDP is notable. The K3100M achieves significantly higher performance within the same 75 W power envelope, showcasing the efficiency improvements of the Kepler architecture over Fermi 2.0.

Other Differences:

• The K3100M was released on 2013-07-22, while the GTX 560M came earlier on 2011-05-29.
• The K3100M’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 560M’s predecessor is the GeForce 400M and its successor is the GeForce 600M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 6154 compared to the GTX 560M’s 4855, a 26.8% advantage.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The K3100M has a clear advantage with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, offering 60.00 GB/s.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The K3100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the GTX 560M uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF116 chip.

Q: What is the performance gap in terms of their overall standing?

A: The K3100M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 560M is at the 28th percentile. Despite being close in percentile, the K3100M’s average benchmark score of 5154 is higher than the GTX 560M’s 4855.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, which is four times more than the 192 shading units found on the GeForce GTX 560M.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same power consumption?

A: Yes, both the K3100M and the GTX 560M have a TDP of 75 W, despite the K3100M offering substantially higher performance.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is straightforward based on the data. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior product in almost every measurable way. It offers a 26.8% lead in the only head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, has four times the shading units, double the memory bandwidth, and a larger 4 GB frame buffer. It achieves all of this within the same 75 W TDP as the GTX 560M, a signal of the efficiency of its newer Kepler architecture. Anyone needing a mobile GPU for professional compute tasks, 3D rendering, or other GPU-accelerated work should unequivocally choose the K3100M.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is the older, less capable part. Its only benchmark score of 4855 places it in a similar performance tier as the K3100M’s nearest rivals, but it is clearly outclassed by the Quadro. Its Fermi 2.0 architecture is less efficient and less feature-rich, lacking Vulkan support. While it might have been a decent gaming option in its day, the data shows that it is simply outmatched by the K3100M in compute performance. The only scenario where the GTX 560M would be the correct choice is if it were available at a significantly lower cost, but that is not a factor that can be evaluated from this data. For pure performance, the K3100M is the definitive winner.