NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture powers both the GeForce GTX 675MX and the Quadro K4100M, but the two mobile GPUs are tuned for very different workloads. The GTX 675MX is a consumer gaming chip from the GeForce 600M generation, while the K4100M is a professional mobile workstation part from the Quadro Kepler-M line. Both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, and both share the GK104 chip, a 256-bit memory bus, and 32 ROPs. The data shows a split decision in head-to-head benchmarks: the Quadro wins one test, the GeForce wins the other, and the underlying specifications explain why. This analysis relies exclusively on the fact pack provided, covering benchmark scores, architectural differences, and use-case guidance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two direct benchmark comparisons, with each taking a decisive victory in a different workload. In the Geekbench Metal test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 6,662 points, beating the GeForce GTX 675MX’s 6,131 points by a margin of 8%. This is the Quadro’s strongest showing, and it aligns with the chip’s higher shading unit count—1,152 versus 960 for the GeForce. The Quadro also carries more texture mapping units (96 vs. 80) and higher pixel and texture fill rates (16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 13.08 GPixel/s and 52.32 GTexel/s). The Metal result suggests the Quadro’s extra execution resources translate into better compute throughput in Apple’s graphics API, even if the raw clock speed is modest.

The GeForce GTX 675MX strikes back hard in the Geekbench OpenCL test. It posts a score of 10,723, which is 17.2% higher than the Quadro’s 9,149. That is a substantial gap, and it flips the overall benchmark average in the GeForce’s favor. The GTX 675MX’s average benchmark score across both tests is 8,427, compared to 7,906 for the Quadro—a difference of roughly 6.6%. The OpenCL win likely stems from the GeForce’s higher memory clock (900 MHz, or 3.6 Gbps effective, versus 800 MHz, or 3.2 Gbps effective) and its resulting bandwidth advantage of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. While the Quadro has more shaders, the GeForce’s faster memory subsystem appears to matter more in OpenCL’s parallel workload patterns.

The delta between the two chips in their respective wins is asymmetric: the Quadro’s Metal victory is a modest 8%, while the GeForce’s OpenCL victory is a commanding 17.2%. This means that in any application leveraging OpenCL, the GTX 675MX is the clear performer, but in Metal-centric tasks, the Quadro holds a narrower edge. Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The GTX 675MX’s average score of 8,427 sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458) and AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462), and it is 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325). The Quadro K4100M’s 7,906 average is 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 460 (7,925) and 1.7% behind both the Quadro P5000 (8,039) and GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). In percentile terms, the GTX 675MX ranks at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 41st percentile—a narrow overall gap that hides the wide variance between their best and worst tests.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is the better all-around performer, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the better choice for specific professional workloads. The GeForce wins on average benchmark score (8,427 vs. 7,906) and dominates the OpenCL test by 17.2%, which is the larger single-test margin of the two. That OpenCL advantage, combined with its higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs. 102.4 GB/s) and faster effective memory clock (3.6 Gbps vs. 3.2 Gbps), makes it the pick for compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL. The Quadro, however, takes the Metal test by 8%, and its 4 GB memory capacity—double the GeForce’s 2 GB—offers a capacity advantage that the benchmark scores alone do not capture.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the GTX 675MX is the data-backed choice. Its 17.2% lead in that test is decisive, and its average score is 6.6% higher overall. For a user working in Metal-based applications, the Quadro K4100M is the safer bet, with an 8% lead in that specific test and a larger memory pool for holding bigger datasets. The Quadro also carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, which is stated here for reference only. The GeForce has no launch MSRP listed in the data. Neither chip supports ray tracing or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life products, so this verdict is purely about their measured performance in these two benchmarks.

The verdict does not favor one card universally. The GeForce wins on average, but the Quadro wins the Metal test and offers double the memory. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy, the GeForce’s 17.2% margin is too large to ignore. If the workload is Metal-heavy or memory-capacity-sensitive, the Quadro’s 8% lead and 4 GB frame buffer make it the logical choice. There is no tie-breaker in the data; both cards win one benchmark each, and the final decision hinges entirely on which benchmark matters more to the user.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is the winner in compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. Its 10,723 OpenCL score beats the Quadro’s 9,149 by 17.2%, and its memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s outpaces the Quadro’s 102.4 GB/s by 12.5%. The GeForce also has a higher memory clock (900 MHz vs. 800 MHz), which likely contributes to its OpenCL advantage. For general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, or any workload that uses OpenCL as the compute interface, the GTX 675MX is the superior part. Its average benchmark score of 8,427 also places it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the Quadro’s 41st percentile ranking.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the winner in Metal-based workloads and in scenarios where memory capacity is paramount. Its Metal score of 6,662 is 8% higher than the GeForce’s 6,131, and its 4 GB GDDR5 memory is double the GeForce’s 2 GB. The Quadro also has more shading units (1,152 vs. 960), more texture mapping units (96 vs. 80), and higher pixel and texture fill rates (16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s vs. 13.08 GPixel/s and 52.32 GTexel/s). These specifications give it a fill-rate advantage that likely supports its Metal win. For professional visualization, CAD, or content creation applications that run on Metal, the Quadro’s combination of higher Metal score and doubled memory capacity makes it the preferred choice.

The split is clean: the GeForce wins on OpenCL and average score, the Quadro wins on Metal and memory capacity. Neither card dominates the other across all metrics, and each has a clear domain where it excels. The GeForce’s texture rate is 52.32 GTexel/s, while the Quadro’s is 67.78 GTexel/s—a 29.5% advantage for the Quadro that likely contributes to its Metal performance. Conversely, the GeForce’s FP32 throughput is 1,255.7 GFLOPS, while the Quadro’s is 1.627 TFLOPS—a 29.6% advantage for the Quadro in raw floating-point compute, though this does not translate into an OpenCL win, likely due to memory bandwidth constraints.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 7,906. The GeForce leads by approximately 6.6%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The Quadro K4100M wins the Metal test with a score of 6,662, beating the GTX 675MX’s 6,131 by 8%. The Quadro’s higher shading unit count (1,152 vs. 960) and texture mapping units (96 vs. 80) likely contribute to this win.

Q: What is the margin of victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 675MX wins OpenCL with a score of 10,723 versus 9,149 for the Quadro, a margin of 17.2%. This is the larger of the two head-to-head deltas.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and by how much?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the 2 GB found on the GTX 675MX. Both use a 256-bit memory bus, but the GeForce has higher bandwidth (115.2 GB/s vs. 102.4 GB/s).

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip with NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the power and interface specifications for both cards?

A: Both have a TDP of 100 W, use an MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Both are end-of-life products with portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the GK104 chip, the Kepler architecture, and the 28 nm TSMC process, the GTX 675MX and Quadro K4100M differ significantly in their internal configurations. The most striking difference is in shading units: the Quadro has 1,152, which is 20% more than the GeForce’s 960. This extends to texture mapping units, where the Quadro’s 96 TMUs surpass the GeForce’s 80 by 20%. Both cards have 32 ROPs, but the Quadro’s higher clock configuration yields a pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s for the GeForce—a 29.5% advantage. The texture rate follows suit: 67.78 GTexel/s for the Quadro against 52.32 GTexel/s, a 29.5% lead. In raw FP32 compute, the Quadro posts 1.627 TFLOPS, while the GeForce delivers 1,255.7 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 29.6%.

Memory is where the GeForce fights back. The GTX 675MX runs its GDDR5 memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth across the 256-bit bus. The Quadro runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), producing 102.4 GB/s. The GeForce’s 12.5% bandwidth advantage likely explains its OpenCL win, despite having fewer shaders. However, the Quadro doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB, a critical factor for large datasets in professional applications. Both cards have a base clock for the Quadro of 706 MHz (boost also 706 MHz), while the GeForce’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

Beyond the core counts and clocks, the two cards are nearly identical in platform specifications. Both use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, have a 100 W TDP, use MXM Module slot width, and list no power connectors. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, with no ray tracing or tensor cores. The transistor density is the same at 12.0M / mm². The generational lineage differs: the GeForce 600M succeeded the GeForce 500M and was succeeded by the GeForce 700M, while the Quadro Kepler-M succeeded Quadro Fermi-M and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell-M. The release dates are also distinct, with the GeForce launching on 2012-09-30 and the Quadro on 2013-07-22, though both are now end-of-life. The Quadro carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, while the GeForce has no such listing in the data.