NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M represent two distinct philosophies in mobile graphics from the same manufacturer, separated by nearly two years of architectural evolution. The K5100M is a professional-grade Kepler part built for maximum compute throughput, while the GTX 960M is a consumer Maxwell chip optimized for efficiency. Benchmark data shows the K5100M holds a 6.6% lead in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11,771 against 11,045. However, the GTX 960M counters with a Vulkan score of 8,245 and a higher base clock, making the choice highly workload-dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M is the clear winner in raw compute-heavy tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,771 not only beats the GTX 960M’s 11,045 but also places it in a higher performance tier, with an average benchmark score of 10,043 versus 9,645. This translates to a 4.1% advantage in average score, a meaningful gap in professional applications that leverage OpenCL for rendering, simulation, or scientific computing. The K5100M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (average score 10,070), is only 0.3% behind, while the GTX 960M sits just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637) and 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). The data indicates the K5100M competes at the level of desktop workstation cards, whereas the GTX 960M trades blows with entry-level professional parts.

The GTX 960M wins on architectural efficiency and modern API support. Its Vulkan score of 8,245 demonstrates a capability the K5100M simply does not possess, as the older Kepler card lacks a Vulkan benchmark result entirely. This is critical for modern game engines and compute frameworks that increasingly rely on Vulkan’s low-overhead access to the GPU. Additionally, the GTX 960M’s higher boost clock of 1,176 MHz (compared to the K5100M’s fixed 771 MHz) suggests better sustained performance in latency-bound or lightly-threaded workloads where clock speed matters more than raw shader count. In practical terms, the GTX 960M is better suited for gaming and consumer applications that prioritize single-threaded or low-occupancy performance, while the K5100M excels in massively parallel professional workflows.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The K5100M uses the GK104 chip with a Kepler design, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The GTX 960M, by contrast, uses the GM107 chip with the newer Maxwell architecture, also on 28 nm at TSMC, but with only 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 12.6M / mm². This means the Maxwell design achieves better performance per transistor, a key reason why the smaller chip can approach the Kepler flagship in compute despite having far fewer resources.

The compute resource disparity is stark. The K5100M features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs), while the GTX 960M is hobbled with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the K5100M a 2.4x advantage in shader count and a 3.2x advantage in TMUs. Consequently, the K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 98.69 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, versus the GTX 960M’s 1.505 TFLOPS and 47.04 GTexel/s. The pixel rate also favors the K5100M at 24.67 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s. However, the GTX 960M counters with higher clocks: 1,097 MHz base and 1,176 MHz boost, versus the K5100M’s static 771 MHz for both base and boost. Memory configurations differ as well: the K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (providing 115.2 GB/s bandwidth), while the GTX 960M has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus (80.19 GB/s).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K5100M wins decisively. It scores 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,045 for the GTX 960M, a 6.6% advantage. This aligns with its 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1.505 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the GTX 960M support Vulkan, and does the K5100M?

A: Yes, the GTX 960M supports Vulkan and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,245. The K5100M does not have a Vulkan benchmark result, though its API list includes Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 960M’s Vulkan version is newer at 1.4.

Q: How do memory capacities and bandwidth compare?

A: The K5100M has double the memory: 8 GB versus 4 GB. It also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, giving it 115.2 GB/s bandwidth compared to 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 960M.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The GTX 960M has a lower TDP of 75 W versus 100 W for the K5100M. Given that the GTX 960M achieves 93.8% of the K5100M’s OpenCL score (11,045 vs 11,771) at 75% of the power draw, it is significantly more efficient per watt.

Q: What are the production statuses and release timelines?

A: Both are end-of-life. The K5100M was released on 2013-07-22, while the GTX 960M came later on 2015-03-12. The K5100M succeeded the Quadro Fermi-M and was replaced by Quadro Maxwell-M; the GTX 960M succeeded GeForce 800M and was replaced by GeForce 10 Mobile.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The K5100M ranks in the 48th percentile, while the GTX 960M ranks in the 46th percentile. This is consistent with the K5100M’s higher average benchmark score of 10,043 versus 9,645.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

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

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 1097 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1176 MHz |

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

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

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

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

| FP32 (Float) | 2.369 TFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

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

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

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K5100M wins with a score of 11,771 against the GTX 960M’s 11,045. This 6.6% delta is the single largest measurable performance gap between the two. The K5100M’s victory is attributed to its 2.4x more shading units (1,536 vs 640) and 3.2x more TMUs (128 vs 40), which provide massive parallel throughput. The texture rate difference is particularly telling: the K5100M produces 98.69 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s, a 2.1x advantage that heavily influences compute workloads relying on texture sampling.

However, the GTX 960M is not without its own victories. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,245 represents a capability the K5100M cannot match, as no Vulkan result exists for the older card. This is a qualitative win for the Maxwell part, as Vulkan is the modern standard for cross-platform GPU compute and gaming. Furthermore, the GTX 960M achieves its OpenCL score of 11,045 (93.8% of the K5100M) with only 41.7% of the shader count, 31.3% of the TMUs, and 75% of the TDP. This efficiency is driven by its higher clock speeds: the GTX 960M boosts to 1,176 MHz, which is 52.5% higher than the K5100M’s fixed 771 MHz. In memory, the K5100M’s 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is 43.7% higher than the GTX 960M’s 80.19 GB/s, but the GTX 960M’s memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) is 39.2% faster than the K5100M’s 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), partially compensating for the narrower bus.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the K5100M’s average benchmark score of 10,043 places it 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013). The GTX 960M’s average of 9,645 puts it 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653) and 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637). This shows that the K5100M competes in a higher performance stratum than the GTX 960M, even though both are end-of-life mobile parts. The data supports a clear verdict: the K5100M dominates in compute throughput and memory capacity, while the GTX 960M wins on efficiency, clock speed, and modern API support. For professional workloads requiring maximum FP32 and bandwidth, the K5100M is superior; for consumer gaming or Vulkan-based applications, the GTX 960M is the more practical choice.