NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results available split the wins evenly, but the margins tell very different stories. In Geekbench Metal, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M posts a decisive victory with a score of 6662 against the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 4858, a delta of -27.1% in favor of the Quadro. That is a substantial gap, suggesting the Quadro is noticeably stronger in Apple’s Metal compute workloads. The GTX 650 Ti Boost fights back in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 9302 versus the Quadro’s 9149, a slim 1.7% margin. That is close enough to be considered a statistical tie in practical terms, but the data does show the GeForce edging ahead.

Looking at average benchmark scores confirms the split is narrow overall. The GTX 650 Ti Boost averages 8067, while the Quadro K4100M averages 7906. That puts the GeForce ahead by roughly 2% in aggregate, though the Quadro’s Metal advantage is far more pronounced than the GeForce’s OpenCL lead. The percentile rankings reflect this near-parity: the GTX 650 Ti Boost sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st. Neither card is a top-tier performer by modern standards, but the data places them in the same broad performance tier.

The nearest rival lists add context. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s closest competitors are the NVIDIA GRID K2 (average score 8080, delta -0.2%), the GTX 650 Ti (8053, delta 0.2%), the GTX 880M (8040, delta 0.3%), and the Quadro P5000 (8039, delta 0.3%). The Quadro K4100M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 (7925, delta -0.2%), the Quadro P5000 (8039, delta -1.7%), the GTX 880M (8040, delta -1.7%), and the GTX 650 Ti (8053, delta -1.8%). Notably, the Quadro P5000 appears in both lists, sitting just above the K4100M but only marginally ahead of the GTX 650 Ti Boost. The deltaPct values show that all these cards are clustered within a couple of percentage points, reinforcing that the two products are closely matched in raw compute, despite their different market positions.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. That is where the similarities end. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the GK106 chip, which packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Quadro K4100M steps up to the GK104 chip, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro’s larger die and higher transistor count point to a more complex and capable silicon design, even if clock speeds are lower.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The GTX 650 Ti Boost comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M doubles the capacity to 4 GB and widens the bus to 256-bit, but memory speed drops to 3.2 Gbps effective compared to the GTX’s 6 Gbps. The net effect is lower bandwidth on the Quadro: 102.4 GB/s versus 144.2 GB/s. That is a notable difference, especially for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Compute resources are where the Quadro pulls ahead in raw hardware. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher counts should theoretically give it more throughput, but the GTX’s higher clocks help close the gap. The GTX runs at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost of 1032 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. In terms of fill rates, the GTX achieves 16.51 GPixel/s and 66.05 GTexel/s, while the Quadro achieves 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s. The Quadro edges out the GTX in both pixel and texture rates, but the differences are small. FP32 performance is nearly identical: 1.585 TFLOPS for the GTX versus 1.627 TFLOPS for the Quadro, a delta of about 2.6%.

Power and form factor are starkly different. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is a dual-slot desktop card with a 134 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The Quadro K4100M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for mobile workstations. Its display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning the laptop manufacturer determines connectivity. The GTX offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Metal compute workloads?

A: The Quadro K4100M is significantly faster, scoring 6662 in Geekbench Metal compared to the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 4858, a delta of -27.1% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 9302, narrowly beating the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a margin of just 1.7%.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API compatibility is identical.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB. The GTX has higher memory bandwidth at 144.2 GB/s versus the Quadro’s 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, compared to the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 768. The Quadro also has more TMUs (96 vs 64) and more ROPs (32 vs 24).

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The GTX 650 Ti Boost was released on 2013-03-25, and the Quadro K4100M on 2013-07-22.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification except for architecture, process node, foundry, and API support. Here are the fields where they diverge:

• Chip: GK106 (GTX 650 Ti Boost) vs GK104 (Quadro K4100M)
• Transistors: 2,540 million vs 3,540 million
• Die size: 221 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 11.5M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 980 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Boost clock: 1032 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Memory clock: 6 Gbps effective vs 3.2 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory bus width: 192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 144.2 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 vs 1152
• TMUs: 64 vs 96
• ROPs: 24 vs 32
• Pixel rate: 16.51 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 66.05 GTexel/s vs 67.78 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.585 TFLOPS vs 1.627 TFLOPS
• TDP: 134 W vs 100 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs not specified
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• Length: 241 mm (9.5 inches) vs not specified
• Release date: 2013-03-25 vs 2013-07-22
• Launch MSRP: 169 USD vs 1,499 USD
• Predecessor: GeForce 500 vs Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: GeForce 700 vs Quadro Maxwell-M

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4100M wins decisively in Metal compute, where its 6662 score crushes the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 4858. That makes it the better choice for applications that leverage Apple’s Metal API, such as certain creative and scientific workloads on macOS. The Quadro also has double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which matters for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures. Its lower TDP of 100 W versus 134 W makes it more power-efficient, and its MXM form factor is designed for mobile workstations, so it is the only option of the two for a laptop.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins in OpenCL, albeit narrowly, with a 9302 score versus 9149. It also has significantly higher memory bandwidth (144.2 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s), which can benefit bandwidth-bound tasks. Its higher clock speeds (980 MHz base, 1032 MHz boost) give it an edge in clock-sensitive workloads, and its traditional dual-slot PCIe design makes it a straightforward drop-in for desktop builds. The GTX offers dedicated display outputs (2x DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort), whereas the Quadro’s outputs depend entirely on the host laptop.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice comes down to workload and platform. If you need Metal performance, the Quadro K4100M is the clear winner by a 27.1% margin. If you are using OpenCL, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is slightly ahead at 1.7%, but that is within noise. The Quadro’s higher transistor count, more shading units, extra memory, and lower TDP make it the more technically advanced part in several respects, despite lower clocks and bandwidth. The GTX counters with superior memory bandwidth and a much lower launch MSRP of 169 USD versus the Quadro’s 1,499 USD, though pricing should not factor into a decision based purely on performance data.

For a desktop system where OpenCL is the primary workload, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the practical pick. Its higher bandwidth and clock speeds translate into a marginal but measurable win, and its standard PCIe form factor and built-in display outputs simplify integration. For a mobile workstation or any environment where Metal matters, the Quadro K4100M is the only viable choice, as the GTX is a desktop-only card. The Quadro’s larger memory pool also gives it headroom for tasks that exceed 2 GB. Neither card is a powerhouse by modern standards — both sit in the low 40s percentiles — but between the two, the Quadro K4100M offers the more compelling feature set for demanding professional use, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the better desktop value based on the benchmark numbers alone.