NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between these two Kepler-era mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M claims victory in two of the three head-to-head tests, but the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M delivers a decisive counterpunch in the remaining one. The most striking result is in Geekbench Metal, where the Quadro K3100M scores 3,823 against the GTX 765M's 2,612, a 31.7% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a commanding margin that suggests the Quadro's architecture is substantially better optimized for Metal workloads, likely due to its professional-grade driver stack and compute-oriented design.

However, the GTX 765M strikes back with equal vigor in the other two tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 765M posts 7,176 versus the Quadro's 6,154, a 16.6% lead. The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap, with the GTX 765M scoring 6,714 against 5,484, a 22.4% advantage. These are substantial wins that flip the overall narrative. When looking at the average benchmark score, the GTX 765M edges ahead with 5,501 versus the Quadro's 5,154, a difference of roughly 6.7%. The percentile rankings reflect this: the GTX 765M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M sits slightly lower at the 30th percentile.

The deltas tell a story of specialization. The Quadro's Metal win is its only bright spot, but it is a bright spot indeed. The GTX 765M's OpenCL and Vulkan victories are broader and arguably more relevant for general-purpose computing and modern graphics APIs. The data suggests that if your workload leans heavily on Metal — common in macOS environments or certain creative applications — the Quadro is the clear choice. For everything else, the GTX 765M appears to hold the edge.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the better all-round performer, winning two of three benchmarks and posting a higher average score (5,501 vs 5,154). Its OpenCL lead of 16.6% and Vulkan lead of 22.4% demonstrate consistent strength across compute and modern graphics APIs. The GTX 765M also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution (32nd vs 30th), confirming its broader competitiveness.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, however, is not without its merits. Its 31.7% advantage in Geekbench Metal is the single largest margin in any head-to-head test between these two cards. For applications that rely heavily on Metal — which includes many professional creative tools on Apple platforms — this advantage could be decisive. The Quadro's pedigree as a professional mobile workstation GPU suggests it is built for stability and certification in specific software environments, even if raw benchmark averages favor the consumer card.

For a gamer or general-purpose user, the GTX 765M is the data-backed choice. For a professional working in Metal-centric creative applications, the Quadro K3100M's benchmark profile is compelling. The average benchmark scores also show the GTX 765M sits in a tight cluster with rivals like the GeForce MX130 (deltaPct -0.1%) and the Radeon R7 M440 (deltaPct 0.3%), while the Quadro K3100M is similarly clustered with the Radeon R7 M260X (deltaPct -0.1%) and the Quadro 4000M (deltaPct -1.1%). Both cards are clearly mid-pack performers in their respective categories.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process node, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 die, which packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² package, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, uses the larger GK104 die, which contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

This silicon disparity has direct consequences. The GK104 chip on the Quadro is nearly 40% larger in transistor count, which typically translates to more functional blocks and greater parallel throughput potential. However, the benchmark results show that the GTX 765M's smaller GK106 chip actually delivers higher raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, suggesting that clock speed and memory configuration play a larger role than sheer transistor count in these workloads.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The GTX 765M pairs its chip with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M doubles the frame buffer to 4 GB and widens the bus to 256-bit, achieving 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth — a 59.7% increase over the GTX 765M. This memory advantage is likely why the Quadro excels in Metal, which can be memory-bandwidth-sensitive. The texture and pixel rates tell a complementary story: the GTX 765M posts 55.23 GTexel/s and 13.81 GPixel/s, while the Quadro manages 45.18 GTexel/s and 11.30 GPixel/s. The GTX 765M's higher clocks — 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost versus the Quadro's flat 706 MHz — drive these fill rate advantages.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key divergences beyond the core architecture. The most immediate difference is memory capacity: the GTX 765M ships with 2 GB, while the Quadro K3100M offers 4 GB. Bus width also differs, with the GTX 765M using a 128-bit interface versus the Quadro's 256-bit. This drives a major bandwidth gap: 64.13 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 765M across the board. Its base clock of 797 MHz and boost clock of 863 MHz substantially outpace the Quadro's locked 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks follow the same pattern, with the GTX 765M running at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Despite these clock advantages, the GTX 765M's FP32 compute is rated at 1,325.6 GFLOPS, which is higher than the Quadro's 1,084.4 GFLOPS — a 22.2% difference.

Both cards share identical shading unit counts (768) and TMU counts (64), but the ROP count differs: the GTX 765M has 16 ROPs, while the Quadro K3100M doubles that to 32. The Quadro's higher ROP count likely explains its strong Metal performance, as pixel-heavy workloads can benefit from additional render output units. Both cards are MXM modules with no power connectors, consume 75 W TDP, and use the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The release dates differ by nearly two months, with the GTX 765M launching on May 29, 2013, and the Quadro K3100M following on July 22, 2013. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 765M succeeding the GeForce 600M and preceding the GeForce 800M, while the Quadro replaces the Quadro Fermi-M and is succeeded by the Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M posts an average benchmark score of 5,501, which is 6.7% higher than the Quadro K3100M's 5,154.

Q: In which benchmark does the Quadro K3100M win?

A: The Quadro K3100M wins the Geekbench Metal test with a score of 3,823, beating the GTX 765M's 2,612 by 31.7%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M offers 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 59.7% higher than the GTX 765M's 64.13 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the GTX 765M and the Quadro K3100M feature 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, but the Quadro has 32 ROPs versus the GTX 765M's 16.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The GTX 765M runs at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost clocks.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance for each card?

A: The GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 22.2% higher than the Quadro K3100M's 1,084.4 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the winner for general-purpose computing and modern graphics APIs. Its OpenCL score of 7,176 and Vulkan score of 6,714 demonstrate clear superiority in compute-heavy and cross-platform graphics workloads. The GTX 765M also wins on raw fill rates — 55.23 GTexel/s and 13.81 GPixel/s — making it better suited for texture-heavy gaming and real-time rendering where high clock speeds matter. Its higher FP32 throughput (1,325.6 GFLOPS) reinforces its strength in general parallel processing tasks. The data also shows the GTX 765M clustering with competitive rivals like the GeForce MX130 and Radeon R7 M440, indicating it holds its own in the mid-range mobile GPU space.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the clear winner for Metal-based applications, where its 31.7% lead in Geekbench Metal is decisive. Its larger 4 GB frame buffer and 256-bit memory bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, make it better suited for memory-intensive professional workloads like large texture sets or high-resolution compute buffers. The doubled ROP count (32 vs 16) suggests the Quadro is better optimized for pixel-heavy operations, which is consistent with its professional workstation heritage. The Quadro's average score of 5,154 places it alongside the Radeon R7 M260X and Quadro 4000M, showing it is a competent performer in its own right, just with a different specialization profile.

The data ultimately suggests these are two differently-tuned versions of the same Kepler architecture. The GTX 765M is a consumer part optimized for speed and general compute, while the Quadro K3100M is a professional part optimized for specific workloads, particularly Metal, with a focus on memory capacity and bandwidth over raw clock speed. Each card wins where its design priorities align with the workload.