NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA Quadro K1100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M and NVIDIA Quadro K1100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA’s Kepler generation, but they target very different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a decisive performance gap between the two, with the GTX 860M winning all three head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, breaks down where each GPU excels, and clarifies their architectural and specification differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains only three common tests, all from the Geekbench suite, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M wins every single one. The smallest margin is in the geekbench_metal test, where the GTX 860M scores 4900 against the Quadro K1100M’s 2048, a delta of 139.3%. That is more than double the score, and it sets the tone for the rest of the comparison.

The geekbench_opencl result widens the gap considerably. The GTX 860M posts 10461, while the Quadro K1100M manages only 3060. This translates to a deltaPct of 241.9%, meaning the GTX 860M is nearly three and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The geekbench_vulkan test shows a similar story: the GTX 860M scores 9648 versus 2884, a deltaPct of 234.5%. Both the OpenCL and Vulkan results indicate that the GTX 860M’s compute advantage is not a fluke but a consistent pattern across different API generations.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 860M’s average benchmark score is 2967, which places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, scores 2953, a mere 0.5% difference, meaning the GTX 860M is effectively performance-equivalent to that desktop card. The Quadro K1100M, by contrast, has an average score of 2664 and sits in the 18th percentile, just one percentage point lower. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 at 2662 (a 0.1% delta), followed by the Intel Arc Pro B50 at 2660 (0.2%). The data shows that while both GPUs are in the lower quartile of overall GPU performance, the GTX 860M is clearly at the top of that low range, whereas the Quadro K1100M is near the bottom.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in every head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M wins all three head-to-head tests. In geekbench_metal it scores 4900 to the Quadro K1100M’s 2048, in geekbench_opencl it scores 10461 to 3060, and in geekbench_vulkan it scores 9648 to 2884. The win count is 3 to 0.

Q: How large is the performance gap in compute workloads?

A: The gap is largest in geekbench_opencl, where the GTX 860M leads by 241.9%. The geekbench_vulkan delta is 234.5%, and the geekbench_metal delta is 139.3%. All three margins are substantial, with the smallest still representing more than double the Quadro’s score.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentiles for each GPU?

A: The GTX 860M has an average benchmark score of 2967 and is in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K1100M has an average score of 2664 and is in the 18th percentile. Despite the similar percentile ranking, the raw score difference is 303 points.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 860M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, with an average score of 2953 and a deltaPct of 0.5%. The Quadro K1100M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, with an average score of 2662 and a deltaPct of 0.1%. Both GPUs sit very close to their immediate competitors.

Q: What is the only benchmark where the Quadro K1100M has any presence?

A: The data shows no benchmark where the Quadro K1100M wins or even comes close. The smallest delta is in geekbench_metal, but the GTX 860M still leads by 139.3%. The Quadro K1100M’s best absolute score is 3060 in geekbench_opencl, which is still far behind the GTX 860M’s 10461 in the same test.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both the GTX 860M and the Quadro K1100M support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The API support is identical, so the performance differences in the benchmarks are not due to software feature gaps.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 860M wins in every measurable category. In raw compute, it dominates the geekbench_opencl test with a 241.9% lead, and the geekbench_vulkan result at 234.5% confirms that this advantage extends to modern graphics APIs. The geekbench_metal score, while the smallest margin, still shows a 139.3% lead, indicating that even in Apple’s Metal API the GTX 860M is far superior. The GTX 860M also has higher pixel rate (21.96 GPixel/s versus 5.648 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (87.84 GTexel/s versus 22.59 GTexel/s), and over four times the FP32 throughput (2.108 TFLOPS versus 542.2 GFLOPS). These numbers suggest that the GTX 860M is suited for gaming and general-purpose graphics tasks, while the Quadro K1100M is outclassed in every scenario.

For the Quadro K1100M, the data shows no benchmark wins. Its only advantage is in efficiency metrics, not performance. It consumes 45 W compared to the GTX 860M’s 75 W, and it uses a smaller die (118 mm² versus 294 mm²) with fewer transistors (1,270 million versus 3,540 million). The Quadro also has a lower memory bandwidth (44.80 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s) and a lower base clock (706 MHz versus 797 MHz). If there is a use case for the Quadro K1100M, it is in thermally constrained laptops where the 45 W TDP is a hard limit and raw performance is secondary. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro wins on speed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond raw performance. The GTX 860M uses the GK104 chip, while the Quadro K1100M uses the GK107 chip. Both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the GTX 860M’s die is 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The Quadro K1100M’s die is 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors, a density of 10.8M / mm². The GTX 860M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro K1100M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The shading unit count is exactly three times higher on the GTX 860M, which explains much of the compute performance gap.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and bus width: both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, the GTX 860M runs its memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, while the Quadro K1100M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for 44.80 GB/s. The GTX 860M has nearly double the memory bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 860M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 915 MHz, whereas the Quadro K1100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GTX 860M’s pixel rate is 21.96 GPixel/s versus 5.648 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 87.84 GTexel/s versus 22.59 GTexel/s. The TDPs are 75 W for the GTX 860M and 45 W for the Quadro K1100M, and the slot widths are IGP versus MXM Module, respectively. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 860M and MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are based on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, but they use different chips with significant internal differences. The GTX 860M’s GK104 chip is a larger, more powerful design, as evidenced by the 3,540 million transistors and 294 mm² die size. The Quadro K1100M’s GK107 chip is a smaller, cut-down variant with only 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the GTX 860M (12.0M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm²), suggesting a more efficient packing of logic.

The shading unit count is the most telling architectural difference: 1152 on the GTX 860M versus 384 on the Quadro K1100M, a 3:1 ratio. The TMU count follows the same ratio (96 versus 32), while the ROP count is identical at 16. This means the GTX 860M has far more compute and texture throughput but the same pixel output capability. The FP32 performance reflects this: 2.108 TFLOPS versus 542.2 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 3.9x. Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores, as both predate the ray tracing and AI accelerator era. The GTX 860M is part of the GeForce 800M generation, succeeding the GeForce 700M and preceding the GeForce 900M, while the Quadro K1100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 860M was released on 2014-03-09, and the Quadro K1100M on 2013-07-22, making the Quadro roughly eight months older.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M is the superior GPU in every benchmark and almost every specification category. It wins all three head-to-head tests with deltas ranging from 139.3% to 241.9%, and its average benchmark score of 2967 outpaces the Quadro K1100M’s 2664 by 303 points. The GTX 860M offers more shading units, higher clock speeds, double the memory bandwidth, and nearly four times the FP32 throughput. For any user prioritizing graphics performance, gaming, or compute workloads, the GTX 860M is the clear choice.

The Quadro K1100M’s only advantages are lower power consumption (45 W versus 75 W) and a smaller die, which may appeal to system builders designing thin, cool laptops where the 45 W TDP is a hard constraint. However, the data shows that even in that context, the performance sacrifice is enormous. The Quadro K1100M’s nearest rival is the GeForce GT 1030, a low-end desktop card, while the GTX 860M trades blows with the GTX 750 Ti. The Quadro K1100M is not a gaming or compute solution by any measure; it is a legacy professional mobile GPU that the market has left behind. For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 860M wins on every metric that matters for speed, and the Quadro K1100M should only be considered if power draw is the absolute priority and performance is irrelevant.