NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 represent two distinct philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by a generation of architecture and aimed at entirely different use cases. The data shows a fascinating split: the mobile workstation card wins decisively in one major benchmark, while the desktop consumer card counters in another. This head-to-head analysis reveals that raw score superiority is not monolithic, and the choice between these two end-of-life parts depends heavily on which workload matters most.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present a clear divide between the two contenders. In the Geekbench Metal test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M delivers a score of 6662, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 manages only 4274. This represents a substantial 55.9% advantage for the Quadro, making it the outright winner in this particular compute scenario. The margin is not trivial; it suggests that the Quadro’s architecture and configuration are significantly better suited to the Metal API’s workload patterns.

However, the story flips in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the GeForce GTX 750 scores 9315, edging out the Quadro K4100M’s 9149. The delta is a narrow 1.8% in favor of the GTX 750. While this is a win for the consumer card, the victory is slim and hardly represents a dominant performance. The data indicates that in OpenCL, the two cards are essentially peers, with the GTX 750 holding a slight but measurable edge.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the average benchmark scores for each card provide additional insight. The Quadro K4100M achieves an average score of 7906, which places it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 with an average score of 7925 (a delta of -0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 at 8039 (-1.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8040 (-1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8053 (-1.8%). These numbers show the Quadro sitting in a tight cluster, with all four rivals within a 1.8% range, indicating that its performance is competitive with a broad swath of mid-range and older high-end cards.

The GeForce GTX 750, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 7222, placing it at the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203 (a delta of 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7171 (0.7%), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7170 (0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at 7157 (0.9%). Interestingly, the GTX 750’s average score is higher than all of these rivals, with the deltaPct values being positive, indicating it outperforms them by a small margin. This positions the GTX 750 as a solid performer in its own right, though its average is notably lower than the Quadro’s.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Quadro K4100M wins the Metal benchmark with a commanding 55.9% lead, and it also holds a higher average benchmark score of 7906 compared to the GTX 750’s 7222. If the primary workload is Metal-based, the Quadro is the clear choice based on the numbers alone. Its 41st percentile ranking versus the GTX 750’s 40th also suggests a slightly stronger overall standing in the broader GPU landscape.

However, the GTX 750 is not without merit. It wins the OpenCL test, albeit by a narrow 1.8% margin. For users or applications that rely heavily on OpenCL, the GTX 750 is the better performer, even if the difference is small. The GTX 750 also has a distinct advantage in its form factor and power characteristics, which are detailed later. For a desktop system where OpenCL is the primary API and power efficiency is a concern, the GTX 750 is the data-backed selection. For a mobile workstation environment where Metal performance is critical, the Quadro K4100M is the superior option. The verdict is not about a single overall winner but about matching the card to the specific software environment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The Quadro K4100M is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. This is a larger and more complex design, with a die size of 294 mm² and a transistor count of 3,540 million, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GeForce GTX 750, in contrast, is based on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip. This chip is significantly smaller at 148 mm², with 1,870 million transistors, but a slightly higher density of 12.6M per mm². Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the node is identical; the differences lie in the chip design and the architectural generation.

The Kepler architecture in the Quadro is designed for higher compute throughput, which is reflected in its specifications. It features 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Maxwell architecture in the GTX 750 is more efficiency-focused, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This lower count of execution units is compensated by higher clock speeds, but the raw computational resources are clearly on the Quadro’s side. The API support also differs slightly: the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 750 lists Vulkan 1.4, indicating a more modern driver stack for the consumer card.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards highlight their divergent purposes. The most obvious difference is in memory. The Quadro K4100M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 750 has only 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a significant gap, with the Quadro offering four times the capacity and roughly 27.7% more bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets in professional workloads.

Clock speeds also tell a story of different design goals. The Quadro operates at a base clock of 706 MHz, with the boost clock also at 706 MHz, indicating no dynamic overclocking headroom. Its memory runs at 800 MHz, effective 3.2 Gbps. The GTX 750, however, has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1085 MHz, showing a much higher operating frequency. Its memory is clocked at 1253 MHz, effective 5 Gbps. These higher clocks contribute to the GTX 750’s competitive OpenCL score despite having fewer cores.

Power consumption is another major differentiator. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, which is typical for a mobile workstation part. The GTX 750 is far more efficient, with a TDP of only 55 W. This is a substantial difference, making the GTX 750 much easier to cool and power in a desktop environment. The physical form factors also differ: the Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for laptops, while the GTX 750 is a Single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length. The Quadro has no power connectors, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the GTX 750 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a. The GTX 750 also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, a detail absent for the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a higher average benchmark score of 7906, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750’s 7222.

Q: In which benchmark does the GeForce GTX 750 win?

A: The GeForce GTX 750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 9315 against the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a delta of -1.8% (in favor of the GTX 750).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 750 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory.

Q: How do their power consumptions compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GeForce GTX 750 has a significantly lower TDP of 55 W.

Q: What are their respective bus interfaces?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the GeForce GTX 750 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Q: Which card has a larger die size and more transistors?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a larger die size of 294 mm² and 3,540 million transistors, while the GeForce GTX 750 has a die size of 148 mm² and 1,870 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the data. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the winner in scenarios that demand high memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 4 GB frame buffer and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are essential for large textures, complex 3D models, and multi-display professional setups. Its 55.9% lead in the Metal benchmark also makes it the go-to choice for applications that leverage the Metal API on supported platforms. The higher average benchmark score suggests that, on the whole, it is the more powerful GPU for compute-intensive tasks, and its position in the 41st percentile, while close to the GTX 750’s 40th, indicates a slight edge in overall performance.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, conversely, wins in efficiency and OpenCL-specific workloads. Its 55 W TDP makes it ideal for compact desktop builds or systems where heat and power draw are primary concerns. The 1.8% victory in OpenCL, while narrow, is a real advantage for software that runs primarily on that API. Its higher clock speeds, with a boost of 1085 MHz versus the Quadro’s static 706 MHz, suggest it handles lightly-threaded or frequency-sensitive tasks better. Furthermore, its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and standard desktop form factor make it a straightforward drop-in upgrade for older systems, whereas the MXM Module form factor of the Quadro limits it to specific laptops. In short, the Quadro is for professional, memory-hungry, Metal-accelerated mobile workstations, while the GTX 750 is for efficient, OpenCL-friendly desktop builds.