NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 950M and Quadro K4100M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target very different workloads. The GTX 950M is a consumer GeForce part from the Maxwell generation, while the Quadro K4100M is a professional Kepler-based mobile workstation GPU. Benchmark data shows the GTX 950M takes the single head-to-head victory, but the architectural and specification splits tell a more nuanced story about where each chip excels.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M wins the only head-to-head test (geekbench_opencl) with a score of 9745 versus the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a 6.5% advantage.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The GTX 950M has a higher average benchmark score of 8135, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4100M averages 7906 and sits in the 41st percentile.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the GTX 950M uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus (28.80 GB/s bandwidth), whereas the Quadro K4100M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (102.4 GB/s bandwidth).

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the chips?

A: The Quadro K4100M’s GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 950M’s GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die — nearly double the transistor budget.

Q: Which GPU has higher shading unit and texture unit counts?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units and 96 texture mapping units, versus the GTX 950M’s 640 shading units and 40 TMUs.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro K4100M?

A: The Quadro K4100M had a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, reflecting its professional workstation positioning.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations. The GeForce GTX 950M is built on Maxwell (chip GM107) and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, released in March 2015. The Quadro K4100M uses the older Kepler architecture (chip GK104) from the Quadro Kepler-M Kx100M series, released in July 2013. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the transistor budgets diverge sharply: the Quadro’s GK104 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die for a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 950M’s GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 12.6M / mm².

Clock behavior also separates the two. The GTX 950M runs a base clock of 993 MHz with a boost up to 1124 MHz, while the Quadro K4100M is locked at a flat 706 MHz base and boost. That clock deficit is compensated by the Quadro’s much larger execution engine: 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus the GTX 950M’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different in type and width — the GTX 950M uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro K4100M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. This yields a massive bandwidth gap (102.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) that favors the workstation card.

Other differences include power and form factor. The GTX 950M has a 75 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated GPU) slot width, while the Quadro K4100M draws 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4 whereas the Quadro K4100M only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GTX 950M follows GeForce 800M and leads to GeForce 10 Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the geekbench_opencl test, and the GTX 950M comes out ahead. It scores 9745 against the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a 6.5% margin. That result aligns with their overall average scores — the GTX 950M averages 8135 across all benchmarks, while the Quadro K4100M sits at 7906. The GTX 950M’s nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, only 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 0.4% ahead), the GeForce 945M (8099, 0.4% behind), and the GRID K2 (8080, 0.7% behind). The Quadro K4100M’s nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 460 (7925, 0.2% ahead), Quadro P5000 (8039, 1.7% ahead), GeForce GTX 880M (8040, 1.7% ahead), and GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053, 1.8% ahead).

The OpenCL win for the GTX 950M is notable given the Quadro’s hardware advantages in raw compute resources. The Quadro K4100M has nearly double the shading units and more than double the TMUs, plus a much wider memory bus. Despite that, the GTX 950M’s higher clocks (993 MHz base / 1124 MHz boost vs 706 MHz fixed) and newer Maxwell architecture deliver better OpenCL performance. The GTX 950M also achieves a higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s) despite having half the ROPs, again reflecting the clock speed advantage. However, the Quadro K4100M wins on texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s) and raw FP32 throughput (1.627 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS), showing that the Kepler chip can still flex its muscle in certain workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification except memory capacity (both 4 GB). The GTX 950M uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, giving 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth; the Quadro K4100M uses GDDR5 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock speeds differ: the GTX 950M runs at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4100M is fixed at 706 MHz for both. Pixel rate favors the GTX 950M (17.98 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s), but texture rate and FP32 favor the Quadro (67.78 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s; 1.627 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS). TDP is 75 W for the GTX 950M and 100 W for the Quadro. Form factor differs: IGP vs MXM Module, with bus interfaces of PCIe 3.0 x8 and MXM-B (3.0), respectively. Vulkan support is 1.4 on the GTX 950M versus 1.2.175 on the Quadro. The GTX 950M has no launch MSRP listed, while the Quadro K4100M carries a 1,499 USD launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950M wins on raw OpenCL performance, as shown by the 6.5% head-to-head margin, and it does so with lower power consumption (75 W vs 100 W). Its higher clock speeds and newer Maxwell architecture make it the better choice for general compute workloads that are not bandwidth-bound. The GTX 950M also has a slight edge in pixel fill rate and a higher average benchmark score (8135 vs 7906), plus better Vulkan API support (1.4 vs 1.2.175). For a consumer laptop GPU, it delivers competitive performance in its percentile class — sitting just 0.4% behind the GeForce GTX 980 and 0.1% behind the Radeon R9 M360 in average score.

The Quadro K4100M wins on memory bandwidth by a wide margin (102.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), which is critical for large datasets and texture-heavy professional applications. It also has more than double the shading units (1,152 vs 640), triple the TMUs (96 vs 40), and double the ROPs (32 vs 16), giving it superior texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (1.627 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS). These resources make it better suited for tasks that scale with parallel execution width and memory throughput, such as CAD, scientific visualization, or rendering workloads. The Quadro’s professional branding and 1,499 USD launch MSRP also signal a different target market — ISV-certified workstation laptops — even though its average benchmark score (7906) is slightly lower than the GTX 950M’s. The data shows a trade-off: the consumer card is faster in the one direct test, but the workstation card packs more raw hardware for bandwidth-hungry professional tasks.