NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two Kepler-based NVIDIA parts. Each card takes one benchmark, and the margins are significant in both directions.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 posts a score of 11299, which is 23.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M's 9149. This is a decisive win for the desktop card, and it aligns with the GTX 760's higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth. The OpenCL result is the more demanding compute workload in this comparison, and the GTX 760 handles it with clear authority.

The tables turn completely in Geekbench Metal. Here, the Quadro K4100M scores 6662, which is 32.1% higher than the GTX 760's 4524. That is a substantial reversal. The delta between the two cards in Metal (32.1%) is actually larger than the delta in OpenCL (23.5%), meaning the Quadro's advantage in Metal is even more pronounced than the GTX 760's advantage in OpenCL. This suggests the Quadro's driver stack or hardware configuration is better optimized for Apple's Metal API, despite the GTX 760 having higher raw compute specifications.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 760 lands at 9458, while the Quadro K4100M sits at 7906. That gives the GTX 760 a 19.6% higher average across all recorded tests. The GTX 760 also holds a better percentile ranking, sitting at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, versus the Quadro's 41st percentile. The GTX 760's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK with an average score of 9474, a negligible 0.2% difference. The Quadro K4100M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 at 7925, also a 0.2% gap. So while the Quadro is competitive with older desktop cards, it is clearly a tier below the GTX 760 in overall compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 wins decisively. It scores 11299 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.5% ahead of the Quadro K4100M's 9149.

Q: Which card wins in Metal performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins. It scores 6662 in Geekbench Metal, which is 32.1% ahead of the GTX 760's 4524.

Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 760 has a higher average benchmark score of 9458, compared to the Quadro K4100M's 7906. The GTX 760 also ranks higher overall, at the 46th percentile of all GPUs versus the Quadro's 41st percentile.

Q: Are these cards based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip from NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 3,540 million transistors and a die size of 294 mm².

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 256-bit bus, but with only 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 760 has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1032 MHz. The Quadro K4100M has a base clock of 706 MHz and a boost clock of 706 MHz, meaning it does not boost at all.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. For general compute and OpenCL tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 is the stronger card. Its 23.5% lead in OpenCL, combined with a 19.6% higher average benchmark score and a better overall percentile ranking, makes it the more capable compute workhorse.

For applications that rely on Apple's Metal API, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the better choice. Its 32.1% advantage in Metal is substantial and cannot be ignored. If your workflow is Metal-centric, the Quadro is the card that delivers higher performance.

For a desktop user running OpenCL workloads, the GTX 760 is the obvious pick. For a mobile workstation user running Metal-optimized applications, the Quadro K4100M is the one to choose. The GTX 760 wins on raw compute and average scores; the Quadro wins on Metal-specific performance. Both cards are end-of-life products, but each still has a distinct use case where it leads.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same underlying chip but differ in almost every implementation detail.

Clock Speeds: The GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The Quadro K4100M runs at 706 MHz base and 706 MHz boost. The GTX 760 is 38.8% faster at base clock and 46.2% faster at boost.

Memory: The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K4100M has 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus. However, memory bandwidth differs significantly: the GTX 760 achieves 192.3 GB/s, while the Quadro manages only 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 760 has 87.8% more bandwidth.

Memory Clock: The GTX 760's memory runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The Quadro's memory runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. The GTX 760's memory is nearly twice as fast.

Compute Rates: The GTX 760 delivers 2.378 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a 46.2% advantage over the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS. The GTX 760 also has higher pixel rate (24.77 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s) and texture rate (99.07 GTexel/s vs 67.78 GTexel/s).

Power and Form Factor: The GTX 760 has a TDP of 170 W and uses a dual-slot design with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a recommended 450 W PSU. The Quadro K4100M has a 100 W TDP and comes as an MXM module with no power connectors and no PSU recommendation. The GTX 760 is a 241 mm desktop card; the Quadro has no listed dimensions.

Outputs: The GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop.

Release and Status: The GTX 760 was released on 2013-06-24, the Quadro K4100M on 2013-07-22. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 760's predecessor is GeForce 600 and successor is GeForce 900. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GK104 chip, part of NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. They share identical transistor counts (3,540 million) and die size (294 mm²), resulting in the same transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

The shading unit count is identical at 1152, as are the TMUs (96) and ROPs (32). Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is expected for Kepler-generation parts.

The key architectural differences come down to clock implementation and memory configuration. The GTX 760 runs its shaders and memory at much higher frequencies, which directly translates to its superior fill rates and FP32 throughput. The Quadro K4100M is clocked lower, likely to fit within a 100 W mobile thermal envelope, but compensates with double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Both cards support the same API levels: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The bus interface differs: the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), which is the mobile module standard.

The memory type is GDDR5 for both, but the GTX 760's 6 Gbps effective speed versus the Quadro's 3.2 Gbps effective speed represents a fundamental difference in how the memory subsystem is tuned. The GTX 760 is optimized for desktop performance, while the Quadro is optimized for mobile power efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 23.5% ahead (11299 vs 9149)
• Average benchmark score: 9458 vs 7906
• Overall GPU percentile: 46th vs 41st
• FP32 throughput: 2.378 TFLOPS vs 1.627 TFLOPS
• Memory bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• Pixel fill rate: 24.77 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s
• Texture fill rate: 99.07 GTexel/s vs 67.78 GTexel/s
• Clock speeds: 980/1032 MHz vs 706/706 MHz
• Desktop connectivity with dedicated display outputs
• Lower launch MSRP: 249 USD vs 1,499 USD

NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in:

• Metal performance: 32.1% ahead (6662 vs 4524)
• Memory capacity: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Power efficiency: 100 W TDP vs 170 W TDP
• Mobile form factor: MXM module vs dual-slot desktop card
• No external power connectors required
• Suited for portable workstation integration

The use-case split is straightforward. The GTX 760 is the pick for desktop users running OpenCL workloads, where its superior clocks and bandwidth deliver a clear edge. The Quadro K4100M is the pick for laptop users who need Metal performance and are willing to trade compute throughput for 4 GB of memory and a 70 W lower power draw. If Metal is your primary API, the Quadro's 32.1% lead makes it the only rational choice. If OpenCL or general compute is the priority, the GTX 760's 23.5% lead and higher average scores make it the stronger performer.