NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M records an average benchmark score of 7906, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 7023. The Quadro K4100M holds a lead of roughly 12.6% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The Quadro K4100M delivers 6662 points in Geekbench Metal, which is 38.4% ahead of the GTX 680M's 4815 points. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any recorded test.

Q: Does the GeForce GTX 680M win any benchmark test?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL the GTX 680M scores 9230 against the Quadro K4100M's 9149, a narrow margin of 0.9%. It is the only test where the GeForce part comes out ahead.

Q: What is the percentile standing of each GPU among all tested graphics cards?

A: The Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st percentile, while the GTX 680M sits at the 39th percentile. Both are mid-range performers in the database's overall distribution.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to average score?

A: The Quadro K4100M's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 460 with an average score of 7925, just 0.2% higher. For the GTX 680M, the NVIDIA T600 is closest at 7035, also 0.2% higher in average score.

Q: Which card features a higher boost clock?

A: The GeForce GTX 680M has a boost clock of 758 MHz, while the Quadro K4100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz with no boost above its base clock.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, use the GK104 chip, and are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The die size is identical at 294 mm², and both pack 3,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². They share the same MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, MXM module slot width, and have no external power connectors, drawing a 100 W TDP.

The core configuration differs significantly. The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GeForce GTX 680M, by contrast, provisions 1344 shading units and 112 TMUs, while retaining the same 32 ROPs. This gives the GeForce part a 16.7% advantage in shading units and a similar proportional edge in texture units.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Quadro K4100M runs at a flat 706 MHz base and boost, meaning no dynamic clock headroom. The GTX 680M starts at 719 MHz base and boosts to 758 MHz, a roughly 5.4% increase over base under load. The memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro K4100M runs its GDDR5 at 800 MHz, translating to 3.2 Gbps effective, while the GTX 680M runs at 900 MHz, or 3.6 Gbps effective. Both use a 256 bit memory bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, but the higher memory clock gives the GTX 680M a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s for the Quadro K4100M, a 12.5% advantage.

The compute rates follow from these differences. The GTX 680M reaches 2.038 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 84.90 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 21.22 GPixel/s of pixel fill. The Quadro K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS, 67.78 GTexel/s, and 16.94 GPixel/s. The GeForce part leads by roughly 25.3% in FP32, 25.3% in texture rate, and 25.3% in pixel rate.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, and both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation and was released on 2013-07-22, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 680M is part of the GeForce 600M generation, released on 2012-06-03, succeeding GeForce 500M and preceding GeForce 700M. The Quadro K4100M has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD; the GTX 680M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two compute workloads, and the results split one win for each card. The most decisive margin belongs to the Quadro K4100M in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 6662 against the GTX 680M's 4815. That is a 38.4% advantage, a substantial gap that suggests the Quadro part has a meaningful edge in Metal-accelerated workloads despite its lower raw shader count and clock speeds.

The GTX 680M answers in Geekbench OpenCL with 9230 points versus 9149 for the Quadro K4100M, a lead of only 0.9%. This is nearly a statistical tie, but it does show that the GeForce card can edge ahead in at least one compute API. The delta is small enough that run-to-run variation could matter, but the database records it as a win for the GTX 680M.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the average scores reinforce the Quadro K4100M's overall position. Its 7906 average sits above the GTX 680M's 7023, a difference of 883 points or about 12.6%. The Quadro K4100M's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 460, scores 7925, just 0.2% higher, while the Quadro P5000 scores 8039 (1.7% higher) and the GTX 880M scores 8040 (1.7% higher). The GTX 650 Ti rounds out the group at 8053, 1.8% higher. This places the Quadro K4100M in a tight cluster of mid-range performers, all within roughly 2% of each other.

The GTX 680M's rival list tells a similar story but from a lower baseline. The NVIDIA T600 scores 7035, just 0.2% higher than the GTX 680M's 7023. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, 0.7% lower, and the GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946, 1.1% lower. The GeForce GTX 970 scores 7157, 1.9% higher. The GTX 680M sits in a slightly lower performance tier than the Quadro K4100M, with its nearest rivals clustering within a couple of percentage points as well.

In percentile terms, the Quadro K4100M's 41st percentile versus the GTX 680M's 39th percentile is a modest separation. Both cards occupy the middle of the database's GPU ranking, and neither is a top-tier part by modern standards. The data suggests that for raw compute in OpenCL, the two are nearly interchangeable, while Metal performance strongly favors the Quadro K4100M.

The texture and pixel rates tell a consistent story with the OpenCL result being the outlier. The GTX 680M's higher TMU count, clock boost, and memory bandwidth give it the theoretical throughput advantage, and that shows up in its 84.90 GTexel/s and 21.22 GPixel/s figures. Yet in the actual recorded benchmarks, the Quadro K4100M wins the Metal test by a wide margin. This indicates that API-specific optimization, driver behavior, or workload characteristics can outweigh raw hardware specifications.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. The Quadro K4100M is the stronger choice for Metal-based workloads, where its 38.4% lead over the GTX 680M is decisive. Its average benchmark score is also higher, 7906 versus 7023, and it holds a slightly better percentile ranking at 41 versus 39. For users whose applications rely on Metal acceleration, the Quadro K4100M is the clear pick.

The GeForce GTX 680M, however, is not without merit. It wins Geekbench OpenCL, albeit narrowly, and it carries higher theoretical specifications across the board: more shading units (1344 versus 1152), more TMUs (112 versus 96), a higher boost clock (758 MHz versus 706 MHz), and greater memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s). Its FP32 throughput of 2.038 TFLOPS outpaces the Quadro K4100M's 1.627 TFLOPS by about 25.3%. If the workload is OpenCL-centric and leans on raw shader throughput, the GTX 680M is the more capable part.

The launch MSRP of the Quadro K4100M, 1,499 USD, reflects its professional positioning, while the GTX 680M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a current-generation purchase. For legacy systems, the choice depends entirely on the software environment: Metal users should favor the Quadro K4100M, while OpenCL users may find the GTX 680M marginally better. The overall average score favors the Quadro K4100M, making it the safer default in mixed workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | GeForce 600M |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2012-06-03 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 500M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 700M |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 719 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 758 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 96 | 112 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.94 GPixel/s | 21.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.78 GTexel/s | 84.90 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.627 TFLOPS | 2.038 TFLOPS |

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | None recorded |

| Geekbench Metal | 6662 | 4815 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 9149 | 9230 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 7906 | 7023 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 41 | 39 |

Shared specifications include the GK104 chip, Kepler architecture, 28 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 3,540 million transistors, 294 mm² die size, 12.0M / mm² transistor density, 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 256 bit bus width, 32 ROPs, 100 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, portable device dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175, and end-of-life production status.