NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The data shows that the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the clear performance winner over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, taking both head-to-head benchmark victories with a significant margin. However, the GTX 760M is not without merit, as it offers a more power-efficient package and a slightly higher average benchmark score relative to its nearest rivals. This comparison is a classic case of a professional-grade mobile workstation GPU versus a consumer gaming mobile GPU from the same Kepler generation, where the choice depends entirely on the workload and platform constraints.

The Verdict

For any workload that leverages general-purpose compute or modern graphics APIs, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the definitive choice based on benchmark results. It wins both recorded head-to-head tests: the Geekbench OpenCL test (6154 vs. 5604, a delta of -8.9% for the GTX 760M) and the Geekbench Vulkan test (5484 vs. 4868, a delta of -11.2% for the GTX 760M). The Quadro's advantage is substantial in both compute and graphics workloads, making it the superior option for professionals or users who need maximum throughput. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus interface also provide a structural advantage for larger datasets.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the pick for scenarios where power consumption and thermal output are the primary constraints. Its TDP is 55 W compared to the Quadro's 75 W, a significant difference for mobile chassis designs. While it loses the benchmark war, it still posts a respectable average benchmark score of 5236, which is actually higher than the Quadro K3100M's average of 5154. This is because the GeForce's nearest rival comparisons show it performing 0.5% better than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and 1.5% better than the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, while the Quadro K3100M's nearest rival list shows it trailing the same Radeon R7 M260X by -0.1%. The GTX 760M is the logical choice for a thinner, cooler, and less power-hungry laptop that still needs competent graphics performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins decisively in raw performance across both tested dimensions. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, which measures general-purpose compute on the GPU, the Quadro scores 6154 against the GTX 760M's 5604. This 550-point gap indicates a meaningful advantage in compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Vulkan benchmark, which tests modern graphics API performance, also goes to the Quadro with a score of 5484 versus 4868. This suggests the Quadro is better equipped for newer game engines and graphics workloads that utilize Vulkan's low-overhead features, despite its professional branding.

The GTX 760M's wins are not in benchmark scores but in efficiency and relative standing. Its 55 W TDP is 20 W lower than the Quadro's 75 W, which translates to less heat generation and potentially longer battery life in a laptop. Furthermore, its average benchmark score of 5236 places it 0.5% above the Quadro 4000M and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, showing it is a strong performer in its own tier. The data also shows the GTX 760M's score is only -0.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and -1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which are both consumer gaming parts, indicating that the GTX 760M holds its own within its peer group despite being older.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and use the same 28 nm process node from TSMC, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip, while the Quadro K3100M uses the larger GK104 chip. This difference is significant: the GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the GK106S has only 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The Quadro's chip is substantially larger and more complex, which explains its higher raw performance potential. The transistor density is similar (12.0M / mm² for Quadro vs. 11.5M / mm² for GTX), but the Quadro simply has more hardware to work with.

The memory subsystems are also completely different. The Quadro K3100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 760M, in contrast, has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing only 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. This 60% difference in memory bandwidth is a critical factor for high-resolution textures and compute workloads that are memory-bound. The Quadro's memory clock is lower (800 MHz vs. 1002 MHz), but the wider bus more than compensates, resulting in a massive bandwidth advantage. Both GPUs have the same core counts for shading units (768) and texture mapping units (64), but the Quadro doubles the ROPs to 32, improving its pixel throughput capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has a higher average benchmark score of 5236, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M's 5154. This places the GTX 760M in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro is in the 30th percentile.

Q: What are the head-to-head benchmark results between these two?

A: The Quadro K3100M wins both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 6154 versus 5604 for the GTX 760M. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 5484 versus 4868. The GTX 760M trails by -8.9% and -11.2%, respectively.

Q: Is there a difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: Yes, the Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GeForce GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W. The GTX 760M is the more power-efficient option for mobile platforms.

Q: Are they based on the same chip?

A: No. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip, while the Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip. The GK104 is a larger and more complex design with more transistors.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are also end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Quadro K3100M's victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test is its most significant. With a score of 6154, it outperforms the GTX 760M's 5604 by a substantial margin. This is not a close contest; the -8.9% delta for the GTX 760M indicates that the Quadro is nearly nine percent faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is likely due to the Quadro's superior memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs. 64.13 GB/s) and its larger GK104 chip. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, this difference would be immediately noticeable in render times or simulation speeds.

The Vulkan benchmark further cements the Quadro's dominance. Here, the Quadro scores 5484, while the GTX 760M manages only 4868. The -11.2% delta is even larger than in OpenCL, showing a more than eleven percent gap in favor of the Quadro. This suggests that the Quadro's architecture is better suited to the low-level, multi-threaded nature of Vulkan. The GTX 760M's lower score in this test is surprising given its consumer gaming focus, but the data is clear: the Quadro is the superior graphics processor for modern API workloads. Despite these losses, the GTX 760M's average score of 5236 remains higher than the Quadro's 5154, which is a statistical anomaly driven by their respective nearest rival comparisons. The GTX 760M's nearest rivals include the GTX 980M, which it trails by only -1.3%, while the Quadro's rivals include the Radeon R7 M260X, which it edges out by only -0.1%.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs highlight the Quadro's professional-grade positioning. The most glaring difference is in memory: the Quadro K3100M offers double the capacity (4 GB vs. 2 GB), double the bus width (256-bit vs. 128-bit), and 60% more bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs. 64.13 GB/s). The clock speeds also differ, with the Quadro having a higher base clock of 706 MHz (no boost) compared to the GTX 760M's 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Interestingly, the GTX 760M has a higher memory clock (1002 MHz vs. 800 MHz), but this is irrelevant given the bus width disparity.

The chips themselves are distinct, with the Quadro using the GK104 (3,540 million transistors, 294 mm²) and the GTX 760M using the GK106S (2,540 million transistors, 221 mm²). This leads to differences in pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s for Quadro vs. 11.50 GPixel/s for GTX, a rare GTX win) and texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s for Quadro vs. 46.02 GTexel/s for GTX). The FP32 performance is nearly identical at 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 1,104.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 760M. The ROP count is double on the Quadro (32 vs. 16), while shading units and TMUs are identical at 768 and 64, respectively. Power consumption is a major differentiator, with the Quadro at 75 W and the GTX 760M at 55 W. The bus interface also differs: the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Both use the MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors, with both being end-of-life products.