NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M, conducted with the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this comparison, the Quadro K4100M delivered a score of 9149, while the GeForce GTX 670M scored 6513. The delta of 40.5% in favor of the Quadro K4100M is substantial, indicating a clear performance separation between these two mobile graphics processors.

Examining the absolute scores, the Quadro K4100M's OpenCL result of 9149 places it comfortably above the GeForce GTX 670M's 6513. The 40.5% advantage represents more than a marginal lead; it suggests that the Quadro K4100M completes compute workloads in roughly 71% of the time required by the GTX 670M, assuming linear scaling. For a database that tracks synthetic benchmarks across a broad range of GPUs, this margin places the two parts in different performance strata despite both being mobile MXM modules.

The GeForce GTX 670M also has a Geekbench Metal score recorded in its entry, but the K4100M does not have a corresponding Metal result in the data. Therefore, the OpenCL test remains the sole point of direct comparison. The fact that the GTX 670M has no OpenCL score that matches its own average, yet the K4100M has both an OpenCL score of 9149 and a Metal score of 6662, gives the Quadro a broader measured benchmark footprint.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark average, the K4100M posts an average score of 7906 across its recorded tests, while the GTX 670M averages 6513 across its single recorded benchmark. This 21.4% gap in average scores reinforces the head-to-head result, though the averages are drawn from different test suites and should be interpreted with that caveat in mind.

The percentile placement further distinguishes the two. The Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the GeForce GTX 670M sits at the 38th percentile. While a three-point percentile difference may seem modest, the percentile metric is derived from the full distribution of recorded GPUs, meaning the K4100M outperforms a larger share of the database population.

When placed against their nearest rivals, the K4100M's average score of 7906 is nearly identical to the GeForce GTX 460's 7925, a delta of only -0.2%. It trails the Quadro P5000 by 1.7% and the GTX 880M by 1.7%, and sits 1.8% behind the GTX 650 Ti. These are tight margins, indicating that the K4100M performs in line with a cluster of mid-range desktop and high-end mobile parts from a later era. The GTX 670M, by contrast, is bracketed by the GeForce GT 555M at 6493 (0.3% ahead), the Quadro M5000M at 6481 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (0.6% ahead), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 (0.6% behind). The GTX 670M's closest rivals are a mix of older mobile parts and integrated graphics, which reflects its lower position in the performance hierarchy.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4100M wins the only directly comparable benchmark, the OpenCL compute test, by 40.5%. That result, combined with its higher average benchmark score of 7906 versus 6513, gives it a clear overall advantage in raw compute throughput. The K4100M also has a Metal score of 6662, which, while not directly comparable to the GTX 670M due to the latter lacking a Metal result, indicates that the Quadro is capable in Apple's compute and graphics API as well.

For the GeForce GTX 670M, the data does not record any benchmark win against the K4100M. Its single OpenCL score of 6513 is lower, and its average benchmark score is lower. The GTX 670M's only measurable advantage is its lower thermal design power: it draws 75 W compared to the K4100M's 100 W. For a mobile workstation or laptop chassis with tight cooling constraints, that 25 W difference could be meaningful, though the database does not include thermal testing data to quantify real-world temperature or throttling behavior.

Use-case segmentation follows from these numbers. For compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU computing, the K4100M dominates based on the 40.5% OpenCL lead. The GTX 670M, with its lower power envelope, might be better suited to scenarios where power delivery or thermal capacity is the limiting factor, but the performance penalty is steep.

The K4100M's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 670M's 1536 MB is another clear differentiator. Workloads that require large working sets, such as texture-heavy 3D scenes or large data buffers, will find the Quadro's larger frame buffer advantageous. The GTX 670M's 192-bit memory bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth are both lower than the K4100M's 256-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, further widening the gap in memory-bound scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The GeForce GTX 670M uses the GF114 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. This node difference is significant: the K4100M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 670M contains 1,950 million transistors spread across a larger 332 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The K4100M therefore crams nearly twice the transistor density into a slightly smaller physical package.

The execution resources differ dramatically. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GTX 670M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The shading unit count alone is more than 3.4 times higher on the K4100M, and the TMU count is 1.7 times higher. These differences explain the large gap in texture fill rate: 67.78 GTexel/s for the K4100M versus 33.49 GTexel/s for the GTX 670M. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 16.94 GPixel/s for the K4100M versus 8.372 GPixel/s for the GTX 670M.

Floating-point throughput follows the same pattern. The K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 670M delivers 803.7 GFLOPS. The K4100M is roughly twice as fast in raw FP32 throughput, which aligns closely with the 40.5% OpenCL benchmark delta but is even more pronounced on paper.

Memory architecture differs in both capacity and bandwidth. The K4100M ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 670M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 72.00 GB/s. The K4100M's bandwidth advantage of 42.2% is slightly less than its compute advantage, but the capacity difference of 2.5 GB is far larger in relative terms.

Clock behavior also differs. The K4100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The GTX 670M has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The lack of recorded core clocks for the GTX 670M prevents a direct clock-to-clock comparison, but the architectural resource differences are sufficient to explain the performance gap.

In terms of API support, both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 670M has no recorded Vulkan support. This makes the K4100M a more flexible option for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute.

The process node difference also has implications for efficiency. Despite the K4100M having more than twice the transistor count and far higher performance, its TDP is only 100 W versus the GTX 670M's 75 W. The 28 nm process allows the K4100M to deliver substantially more performance within a 25 W higher power envelope, making it significantly more efficient in terms of performance per watt.

Both parts are MXM modules with MXM-B (3.0) bus interfaces, meaning they share the same physical form factor and connector. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both. Neither requires external power connectors, and both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

The K4100M's release date is recorded as July 2013, while the GTX 670M's is March 2012. The K4100M is the newer part by roughly a year and a half. Its predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 670M's predecessor is the GeForce 500M and its successor is the GeForce 700M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is 40.5% faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 9149 versus the GeForce GTX 670M's 6513.

Q: Does the GeForce GTX 670M have any advantages over the Quadro K4100M?

A: The GTX 670M has a lower TDP of 75 W compared to the K4100M's 100 W. It also has no recorded benchmark wins against the K4100M.

Q: How do their memory specifications compare?

A: The K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 670M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What architectures do these GPUs use?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture at 28 nm. The GeForce GTX 670M uses the GF114 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture at 40 nm.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 670M has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The K4100M's average score of 7906 is within 1.8% of the GTX 460, Quadro P5000, GTX 880M, and GTX 650 Ti. The GTX 670M's average of 6513 is within 0.6% of the GT 555M, Quadro M5000M, Vega 10 Mobile, and UHD Graphics P750.

The Verdict

The data presents a one-sided comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M outperforms the GeForce GTX 670M in every recorded benchmark category, with a 40.5% lead in OpenCL compute, a higher average benchmark score, and a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its architectural advantages, including more shading units, higher texture and pixel rates, greater FP32 throughput, larger memory capacity, and higher memory bandwidth, all point in the same direction.

For users selecting between these two mobile MXM modules, the Quadro K4100M is the clear choice on performance grounds. Its 4 GB frame buffer and Vulkan support make it more capable for modern workloads, and its higher transistor density on the 28 nm process demonstrates a more advanced design. The GTX 670M's only recorded advantage is its 75 W TDP, which may appeal to systems with extreme power constraints, but the 40.5% performance delta is too large to ignore for any compute-oriented task.

The K4100M's closest rivals in the database, such as the GTX 880M and Quadro P5000, sit within 1.7% of its average score, placing it in a competitive tier well above the GTX 670M. The GTX 670M's nearest rivals are older or lower-performance parts like the GT 555M and Vega 10 Mobile, confirming its position near the lower end of the mobile GPU spectrum.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products, so the decision is likely limited to used or refurbished systems. Given the recorded data, the Quadro K4100M is the superior part for anyone prioritizing compute performance, memory capacity, or modern API support. The GeForce GTX 670M remains a viable option only where its lower power draw is the deciding factor, and even then, the performance trade-off is substantial.