NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an interesting split between these two mobile workstation-class GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life MXM modules aimed at portable devices, but they serve different masters. Looking strictly at the available Geekbench results, the Quadro K5100M takes the sole head-to-head victory in the OpenCL test, scoring 11,771 against the GTX 950A's 10,273 — a 12.7% margin that establishes the professional card as the compute-focused option. However, the GTX 950A does not go down without a fight in the broader context; its single OpenCL score of 10,273 places it at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, matching the Quadro's percentile ranking exactly. This suggests that while the Quadro wins the direct comparison, both cards occupy a similar tier of overall performance in the database's hierarchy.

The GTX 950A's advantage lies in its efficiency profile. With a 75 W TDP against the Quadro's 100 W, the GeForce part delivers its performance with a 25% lower power envelope — a meaningful consideration for thin-and-light mobile workstations where thermal headroom is scarce. The Quadro K5100M, by contrast, wins on raw compute throughput and memory capacity, making it the choice for professionals who prioritize rendering and data-parallel workloads over battery life or thermal management. The data implies a clear use-case split: the GTX 950A suits general-purpose graphics in power-constrained chassis, while the Quadro K5100M targets sustained compute workloads where its larger memory pool and wider bus can shine.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two NVIDIA parts is stark, despite both being built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip under Maxwell architecture, a design that emphasizes efficiency and modern feature support. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K5100M, on the other hand, employs the GK104 chip under the older Kepler architecture, a much larger and more complex design with 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die — nearly double the transistor count and die area, though its density of 12.0 million per square millimeter is slightly lower than the Maxwell part.

This architectural difference manifests in core configuration. The GTX 950A fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro K5100M counters with 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — more than double the shader count and quadruple the texture units. Clock speeds tell a complementary story: the Maxwell chip runs at 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, while the Kepler chip is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost. The higher clocks on the GTX 950A partially offset its fewer cores, but the Quadro's massive core advantage ultimately wins the compute race. Feature-wise, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with the GTX 950A offering Vulkan 1.4 against the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175 — a newer API baseline for the Maxwell part.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive victory for the Quadro K5100M. The professional card scores 11,771 against the GTX 950A's 10,273, a 12.7% delta that reflects the Quadro's superior compute resources. Breaking down what drives this margin: the Quadro's 1,536 shading units deliver a theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.369 TFLOPS, while the GTX 950A manages 1,438.7 GFLOPS — the Quadro leads by roughly 65% in raw floating-point capacity. Memory bandwidth amplifies this gap further. The Quadro's 256-bit bus paired with GDDR5 at 3.6 Gbps effective yields 115.2 GB/s, versus the GTX 950A's 128-bit DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective producing just 32.03 GB/s. That 3.6x bandwidth advantage is exactly the kind of headroom OpenCL workloads need when streaming large datasets.

However, the GTX 950A's higher clocks — 993 MHz base versus 771 MHz — show that architectural efficiency can partially compensate. The Maxwell part's pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s, while lower than the Quadro's 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s, are respectable given the power draw. The delta in this single test is consistent with the overall database picture: the Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, only 0.3% lower) and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, 0.3% higher), while the GTX 950A sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, 0.9% lower) and Tesla C2075 (10,400, 1.2% lower). Both cards hover in the same performance neighborhood, but the Quadro's win here is unambiguous.

# Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals where these two diverge most sharply. Starting with the chip: the GTX 950A uses GM107 (Maxwell), while the Quadro K5100M uses GK104 (Kepler). Transistor counts differ by almost 2x — 1,870 million versus 3,540 million — and die size follows suit at 148 mm² versus 294 mm². Clock speeds favor the GeForce: 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost against the Quadro's fixed 771 MHz. Memory is the most dramatic differentiator. The GTX 950A offers 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 2 Gbps effective, yielding 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5100M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 3.6 Gbps effective, delivering 115.2 GB/s — 3.6x more bandwidth and 4x the capacity.

Compute resources favor the Quadro overwhelmingly: 1,536 shading units versus 640, 128 TMUs versus 40, and 32 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Power draw flips the script: the GTX 950A consumes 75 W against the Quadro's 100 W. Both use MXM-B (3.0) interfaces and MXM Module slot widths, with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates differ by nearly two years — the GTX 950A launched in March 2015, while the Quadro K5100M arrived in July 2013. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GTX 950A's predecessor is GeForce 800A with no successor listed.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,771 against the GTX 950A's 10,273, a 12.7% margin.

Q: How does memory capacity and bandwidth compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 115.2 GB/s, while the GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus providing 32.03 GB/s. The Quadro offers 4x the capacity and 3.6x the bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 950A has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro K5100M draws 100 W. The GeForce part consumes 25% less power.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the core clock speeds?

A: The GTX 950A runs at 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5100M is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: How do these cards rank relative to all GPUs?

A: Both sit at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, with the GTX 950A averaging 10,273 and the Quadro averaging 10,043 across their respective benchmark results.

# The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different buyers. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the compute champion — its 12.7% OpenCL lead over the GTX 950A, combined with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, makes it the pick for professionals running memory-hungry rendering or simulation workloads. The 1,536 shading units and 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are simply in a different class than the GTX 950A's 640 shaders and 1,438.7 GFLOPS. If your work is bottlenecked by memory capacity or raw compute throughput, the Quadro is the data-backed choice.

The GTX 950A, meanwhile, presents a compelling counter-argument for power-sensitive deployments. Its 75 W TDP versus the Quadro's 100 W, combined with a newer Maxwell architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support, makes it the more modern foundation for general graphics tasks. The higher boost clock of 1,124 MHz helps it stay competitive despite fewer cores, and its 48th percentile ranking matches the Quadro exactly. For mobile workstations where thermal design power is a hard constraint, or where the latest API versions matter, the GTX 950A offers a more efficient path to similar overall standing. Choose the Quadro for brute compute and memory; choose the GTX 950A for balance and efficiency. The 12.7% delta in the head-to-head is real, but it comes at a 33% power cost — and that trade-off may not be worth it for every user.