NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are both 28 nm Kepler parts built on the same GK104 chip, yet they deliver dramatically different benchmark results. The GTX 880M wins the Geekbench Metal test, while the Quadro K4100M decisively wins the Geekbench OpenCL test. The data shows two GPUs with identical transistor counts and die sizes, but the GTX 880M holds a clear advantage in raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth, whereas the Quadro K4100M counters with a higher OpenCL score despite lower clock speeds. The average benchmark scores are close — 8040 for the GTX 880M versus 7906 for the Quadro K4100M — but the workload-specific results tell a more nuanced story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test is a landslide for the GTX 880M. It scores 10458 against the Quadro K4100M’s 6662, a delta of 57% in favor of the GTX 880M. This is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison. The GTX 880M’s advantage here is substantial, making it the clear choice for any application heavily reliant on Metal API performance. The 57% lead is not marginal; it represents a full performance tier of separation.

The Geekbench OpenCL test flips the script completely. The Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the GTX 880M manages only 5622. That is a 38.6% deficit for the GTX 880M. The Quadro K4100M’s OpenCL result is remarkably strong, especially considering its lower base and boost clocks of 706 MHz versus the GTX 880M’s 954 MHz base and 993 MHz boost. The data suggests the Quadro K4100M is optimized for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, while the GTX 880M’s architecture favors the Metal path.

In terms of overall average benchmark scores, the two are nearly inseparable. The GTX 880M averages 8040, and the Quadro K4100M averages 7906 — a gap of just 1.7% when compared directly. The GTX 880M’s nearest rival is the Quadro P5000 with an average score of 8039 and a deltaPct of 0, while the Quadro K4100M’s nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 460 at 7925 with a deltaPct of -0.2. The head-to-head deltaPct values confirm the split: one win each, with the Metal margin (57%) far exceeding the OpenCL margin (38.6%) in absolute percentage terms.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon: the GK104 chip, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 12.0M / mm². Both are Kepler architecture parts with no ray tracing or tensor cores. The API support is also identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The differences begin with the execution resources. The GTX 880M packs 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K4100M has fewer of each: 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. This 25% reduction in shading units and TMUs is a major architectural divergence, directly explaining the GTX 880M’s higher theoretical throughput. The pixel rate tells the same story: 31.78 GPixel/s for the GTX 880M versus 16.94 GPixel/s for the Quadro K4100M. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 127.1 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.050 TFLOPS for the GTX 880M against 1.627 TFLOPS for the Quadro K4100M.

Clock speeds reinforce this gap. The GTX 880M runs at 954 MHz base and 993 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the GTX 880M uses 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro K4100M’s 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 8 GB on the GTX 880M versus 4 GB on the Quadro K4100M, though both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The resulting bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s for the GTX 880M and 102.4 GB/s for the Quadro K4100M.

Power consumption is the one area where the Quadro K4100M leads. Its TDP is 100 W, while the GTX 880M draws 122 W. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are portable device dependent for both. The GTX 880M was released on 2014-03-11, while the Quadro K4100M came earlier on 2013-07-22. The GTX 880M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M and successor is the GeForce 900M; the Quadro K4100M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 880M wins in any scenario that relies on the Metal API. Its 10458 Metal score versus 6662 is a 57% advantage, making it the undisputed leader for Metal-based rendering or compute on this hardware. The GTX 880M also wins on every raw specification that matters for traditional graphics: higher clocks, more shading units, more TMUs, double the memory capacity, and 56% more memory bandwidth. For gaming, which typically favors higher fill rates and texture throughput, the GTX 880M’s 127.1 GTexel/s texture rate and 31.78 GPixel/s pixel rate are decisive. The FP32 throughput of 3.050 TFLOPS is nearly double the Quadro K4100M’s 1.627 TFLOPS, meaning any compute task that scales with raw FLOPs will heavily favor the GTX 880M.

The Quadro K4100M wins in OpenCL-based workloads. Its 9149 OpenCL score against 5622 is a 38.6% victory, and this is not a small edge. The fact that the Quadro K4100M achieves this with lower clocks and fewer cores suggests that its driver stack or hardware scheduling is better tuned for OpenCL execution. The Quadro K4100M also wins on power efficiency in a strict sense: it delivers its performance at 100 W versus 122 W, a 22 W difference. For mobile workstations where battery life and thermal headroom are critical, that 22 W saving is meaningful. The Quadro K4100M’s earlier release date also means it has been in the field longer, though both are now end-of-life products.

The average benchmark scores are so close that neither card can claim overall supremacy. The GTX 880M’s 8040 average and the Quadro K4100M’s 7906 average differ by only 1.7%, which is within the noise of most real-world workloads. The percentileVsAllGpus rankings are nearly identical as well: 42nd percentile for the GTX 880M and 41st for the Quadro K4100M. This is a split decision where the winner depends entirely on the API in question.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M if your priority is Metal API performance or raw graphics throughput. The 57% Metal lead is the single most decisive statistic in this comparison, and the GTX 880M’s higher clocks, more shading units, and double memory capacity make it the stronger all-around graphics processor. The 3.050 TFLOPS FP32 rate is a clear indicator that any compute task not specifically tied to OpenCL will run faster on the GTX 880M. The 8 GB memory capacity is also a practical advantage for large textures or datasets, and the 160.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures that memory isn’t a bottleneck.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M if OpenCL performance is your primary workload. The 9149 OpenCL score is 62.7% higher than the GTX 880M’s 5622, and that margin dwarfs any other difference in the spec sheet. The 100 W TDP is also a genuine advantage for thin-and-light mobile workstations, where the 22 W difference can impact cooling and battery life. The Quadro K4100M’s lower power draw does not come at the cost of average performance, as its 7906 average score is only 1.7% behind the GTX 880M’s 8040.

For a balanced workload that mixes Metal and OpenCL, the data is ambiguous. The GTX 880M wins one benchmark by 57%, the Quadro K4100M wins the other by 38.6%. The average scores and percentile rankings are nearly tied. There is no data-driven overall winner here; the choice hinges on which API your applications use. If you cannot determine that, the GTX 880M’s superior specifications — more cores, higher clocks, more memory, more bandwidth — make it the safer bet for general-purpose graphics, despite its higher power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has an average benchmark score of 8040, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M averages 7906. The difference is 1.7% in favor of the GTX 880M.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The Geekbench Metal test shows the largest margin. The GTX 880M scores 10458 versus the Quadro K4100M’s 6662, a 57% lead for the GTX 880M.

Q: Does the Quadro K4100M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149, compared to the GTX 880M’s 5622. That is a 38.6% advantage for the Quadro K4100M.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus but with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs built on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process with a transistor density of 12.0M / mm².

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W, while the Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W. The Quadro K4100M draws 22 W less power.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 954 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 993 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 128 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 31.78 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 127.1 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.050 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 100 W |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2013-07-22 |

| Generation | GeForce 800M | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,499 USD |