NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they serve fundamentally different roles. The GeForce GTX 960A, built on the Maxwell architecture, edges out the Quadro K5100M in the sole recorded OpenCL benchmark, scoring 11,998 against 11,771, a 1.9% advantage. However, the Quadro K5100M, based on the older Kepler architecture, counters with a much larger memory pool, higher raw compute throughput, and a wider memory bus. The data shows that the GTX 960A is the better choice for general compute workloads where raw OpenCL performance is the priority, while the Quadro K5100M is the more balanced option for memory-intensive tasks and professional applications requiring larger frame buffers.

The Verdict

The benchmark database records a single head-to-head OpenCL test, and the GeForce GTX 960A wins it with a score of 11,998 versus 11,771 for the Quadro K5100M, a 1.9% margin. This means the GTX 960A is the faster GPU in pure compute performance, at least as measured by that specific workload. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 51, slightly above the Quadro’s 48, reinforcing that the GTX 960A holds a small but measurable overall performance edge.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The GTX 960A is the pick for anyone running OpenCL-heavy tasks such as general-purpose GPU computing, rendering, or simulation where every point of compute performance matters. It also benefits from a more recent architecture, Maxwell, which brings better efficiency per clock. The Quadro K5100M, meanwhile, is the pick for users who need 8 GB of VRAM, four times the GTX 960A’s 2 GB, for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-monitor professional setups. Its 256-bit memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth also outpace the GTX 960A’s 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s, making it superior for memory-bound tasks.

The GTX 960A’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1080 (0.3% ahead), Radeon RX 6500 XT (1.3% behind), and GTX 1660 (2.7% behind), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket. The Quadro K5100M’s rivals, such as the Radeon Pro 5300M (0.3% behind) and GeForce GTX 870M (0.8% behind), indicate it is similarly positioned but slightly lower overall. For a professional-grade mobile GPU, the K5100M’s score is respectable, but it does not lead its class.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architecture generations. The GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K5100M, in contrast, uses the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node. Its die is significantly larger at 294 mm², containing 3,540 million transistors, which works out to 12.0 million per square millimeter. The larger die and higher transistor count give the K5100M more raw hardware resources, but the Maxwell architecture in the GTX 960A is more modern and typically more efficient per transistor.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs), compared to the GTX 960A’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This hardware advantage translates into higher theoretical throughput for the K5100M: it delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 98.69 GTexel/s texture rate, and 24.67 GPixel/s pixel rate. The GTX 960A, despite fewer units, still achieves 1.505 TFLOPS, 47.04 GTexel/s, and 18.82 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clock speeds (1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost versus the K5100M’s fixed 771 MHz).

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 900 MHz memory clocks (3.6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The K5100M’s bandwidth advantage is 43.6% higher, which matters for large data transfers.

Feature support also differs in the API stack. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5100M only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175. This gives the GTX 960A a more modern foundation for current and future Vulkan-based applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, far more than the GTX 960A’s 640, giving it higher theoretical compute throughput (2.369 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS).

Q: How much memory do they have, and does it matter?

A: The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K5100M has 8 GB. The K5100M also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, leading to 115.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s. This makes the K5100M better for memory-heavy workloads.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The GTX 960A wins the only recorded OpenCL test, scoring 11,998 versus the K5100M’s 11,771, a 1.9% difference. The GTX 960A also has a higher overall percentile rank (51 versus 48).

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The GTX 960A was released on 2015-03-12, and the Quadro K5100M came earlier on 2013-07-22.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro K5100M is rated at 100 W. Neither requires external power connectors, and both use MXM Module slot width with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

Q: Which has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, making the GTX 960A more future-proof for Vulkan titles.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Generation | GeForce 900A | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.505 TFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 100 W |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | None | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct benchmark between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the GTX 960A scores 11,998, and the Quadro K5100M scores 11,771. The GTX 960A wins by 1.9%, which is a narrow margin but consistent across the single data point. This result aligns with the GTX 960A’s higher average benchmark score of 11,998 (its only recorded benchmark) versus the K5100M’s average of 10,043, which includes a lower Geekbench Metal score of 8,315 alongside its OpenCL score.

Breaking down the OpenCL result, the GTX 960A’s advantage likely stems from its higher clocks (1097 MHz base versus 771 MHz) and the efficiency of the Maxwell architecture. Despite having fewer shading units, the GTX 960A manages to outpace the K5100M in this specific workload, which suggests that OpenCL tests on this platform favor clock speed and architectural efficiency over raw unit counts. The K5100M’s higher theoretical FP32 throughput (2.369 TFLOPS versus 1.505 TFLOPS) does not translate into a win here, indicating that real-world performance is not purely a function of spec sheet numbers.

The K5100M’s only other recorded benchmark, Geekbench Metal, yields 8,315, which is notably lower than its OpenCL score. This gap suggests that the K5100M is less optimized for Metal workloads, whereas the GTX 960A has no Metal benchmark recorded, so its compatibility with that API is unmeasured. For users relying on OpenCL, the GTX 960A is the clear winner; for those in Apple-centric environments, the K5100M’s Metal score is the only available data point.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 960A wins in the benchmark that matters most for compute performance: OpenCL. Its 11,998 score beats the K5100M’s 11,771, and it also holds a higher percentile rank (51 versus 48). This makes the GTX 960A the superior choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, and any workload that leverages OpenCL. It also benefits from Vulkan 1.4 support, which is newer than the K5100M’s Vulkan 1.2.175, so it is better prepared for modern cross-platform graphics and compute APIs.

The Quadro K5100M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, which are critical for professional tasks like video editing, 3D modeling, or running large machine-learning models that require extensive VRAM. Its 8 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the GTX 960A’s 2 GB, and its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is 43.6% higher. The K5100M also has higher theoretical peak rates in every rasterization metric: 24.67 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s, and 98.69 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. This means that in applications that are not bound by OpenCL but instead by texture fill or pixel throughput, the K5100M could outperform the GTX 960A, even though the single recorded benchmark does not show it.

For power-constrained systems, the GTX 960A draws 75 W versus the K5100M’s 100 W, making it more energy-efficient. Both are MXM modules without external power connectors, so thermal and power limits are a consideration in mobile workstations. The K5100M’s higher TDP is a trade-off for its larger die and memory subsystem.

In summary, the GTX 960A is the choice for compute-centric users seeking the best recorded OpenCL performance and modern API support, while the Quadro K5100M is the choice for professionals needing large memory capacity and high texture/pixel throughput, accepting a slight compute deficit. The data does not suggest a universal winner; it suggests a workload-dependent split.