NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided contest. Across the two shared tests, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 wins both, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 970 scores 13,595 against the Quadro K4100M's 6,662. That is a 51% difference in favor of the GTX 970, meaning the GeForce card delivers roughly double the Metal performance of the Quadro. The gap is even wider in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 970 posts 29,982 versus the K4100M's 9,149, a 69.5% lead. These are not marginal victories; they are decisive, category-level separations.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling because both cards target different professional ecosystems, yet the GeForce still dominates in this compute-oriented workload. The Quadro K4100M cannot close the gap, and the delta of 20,833 points between the two in OpenCL suggests architectural efficiency differences that go beyond raw clock speeds. The GTX 970 benefits from a higher base clock of 1,050 MHz versus 706 MHz, but the K4100M's numbers reveal that clock rate alone does not explain the entire chasm. The GTX 970 also fields 1,664 shading units against the Quadro's 1,152, and its texture units and ROPs are higher as well, at 104 and 56 versus 96 and 32 respectively.

Looking at the database's average benchmark scores, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, while the GTX 970 sits at 7,157. That is a reversal from the head-to-head results. The K4100M's average is higher, yet its percentile vs all GPUs is 41, compared to the GTX 970's percentile of 39. This apparent contradiction stems from the differing sets of tests recorded for each card. The Quadro has only two benchmark entries, both from Geekbench, while the GTX 970 has eleven entries spanning PassMark, 3DMark, and Geekbench. The GTX 970's average is dragged down by low-scoring legacy DirectX tests, such as PassMark DirectX 9 at 143 and PassMark DirectX 10 at 46, which are not part of the Quadro's recorded results.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize each card's standing. The Quadro K4100M sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, which scores 7,925, and 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000 at 8,039 and the GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040. It is 1.8% behind the GTX 650 Ti at 8,053. These are close groupings, indicating the K4100M's average performance places it in a mid-range cluster. The GTX 970, by contrast, is within 0.2% of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and the GeForce GTX 560 SE, both at 7,170 and 7,171, and 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203, and 0.9% behind the GTX 750 at 7,222. The GTX 970's nearest neighbors are all lower-scoring integrated or older discrete parts, which suggests its averaged results are being tempered by its broader test coverage.

What the head-to-head data shows clearly is that where both cards are measured on the same workload, the GTX 970 is the overwhelming winner. The 51% delta in Metal and the 69.5% delta in OpenCL leave no ambiguity. The Quadro K4100M's higher average score is an artifact of a narrower test suite, not evidence of superior performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in Geekbench Metal?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 scores 13,595 compared to the Quadro K4100M's 6,662. The GTX 970 is 51% ahead in this test.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: The GTX 970 records 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K4100M manages 9,149. That is a 69.5% difference in favor of the GTX 970.

Q: Does the Quadro K4100M have a higher average benchmark score than the GTX 970?

A: Yes. The Quadro K4100M shows an average benchmark score of 7,906, while the GTX 970 averages 7,157. This is because the GTX 970 has a much larger set of recorded tests, including several low-scoring legacy DirectX benchmarks.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K4100M is in the 41st percentile, and the GTX 970 is in the 39th percentile. The K4100M ranks slightly higher despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the GTX 970 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580?

A: The GTX 970's average score of 7,157 is 0.2% lower than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 7,170. The difference is negligible.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, while the Quadro K4100M has 1,152. The GTX 970 also has more texture mapping units, 104 versus 96, and more ROPs, 56 versus 32.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the GeForce GTX 970 is the superior performer in shared workloads. Its 51% lead in Metal and 69.5% lead in OpenCL are not close calls. Anyone whose primary concern is raw compute or graphics performance in these benchmark categories should select the GTX 970 without hesitation.

The Quadro K4100M, however, has its own case. Its average benchmark score of 7,906 is higher than the GTX 970's 7,157, and it holds a better percentile ranking at 41 versus 39. For a user relying on the database's aggregate metrics, the K4100M appears as the more consistent card across its recorded tests. The Quadro also carries workstation-oriented traits, such as its MXM module form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs, which suit it to mobile professional systems.

That said, the head-to-head results are the most direct comparison available, and they favor the GTX 970 overwhelmingly. The GTX 970 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) whereas the K4100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), and it offers Vulkan 1.4 support against the K4100M's Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970 is the pick for performance-focused workloads, while the K4100M remains relevant only in scenarios where its mobile workstation form factor and higher average score are prioritized.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip, also on 28 nm. Both are built by TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the K4100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 970 packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.0 million per mm² for the Quadro and 13.1 million per mm² for the GeForce.

Clock speeds are not close. The K4100M runs at a base and boost of 706 MHz, with memory at 800 MHz or 3.2 Gbps effective. The GTX 970 runs at 1,050 MHz base and 1,178 MHz boost, with memory at 1,753 MHz or 7 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth reflects this: the K4100M offers 102.4 GB/s, while the GTX 970 delivers 224.4 GB/s. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 970's higher memory clock doubles its effective bandwidth.

Compute and fill rates follow the same pattern. The Quadro produces 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 1.627 TFLOPS. The GTX 970 produces 65.97 GPixel/s and 122.5 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 3.920 TFLOPS. The GTX 970 is roughly 2.4 times faster in pixel throughput, 1.8 times faster in texture throughput, and 2.4 times faster in FP32 compute.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, uses an MXM module slot width, and requires no power connectors. The GTX 970 has a TDP of 148 W, is a dual-slot card, and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The GTX 970 suggests a 300 W PSU, while the K4100M lists no suggested PSU. The GTX 970 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The K4100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and has no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the K4100M is portable-device-dependent, while the GTX 970 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is generational. The Quadro K4100M is built on Kepler, NVIDIA's architecture from the Quadro Kepler-M generation, with a release date of July 2013. The GTX 970 is built on Maxwell 2.0, from the GeForce 900 generation, released in September 2014. The 28 nm process is shared, but the underlying designs are distinct.

Kepler and Maxwell 2.0 differ in how they allocate their transistor budgets. The K4100M's GK104 die is smaller at 294 mm², with fewer transistors at 3,540 million. The GTX 970's GM204 die is larger at 398 mm², with 5,200 million transistors. Maxwell 2.0 is generally more efficient per transistor, which the benchmark data supports: the GTX 970 achieves far higher scores despite a TDP of 148 W versus the K4100M's 100 W. The 48 W TDP increase buys a 69.5% OpenCL advantage and a 51% Metal advantage.

The shading and memory architectures also differ. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. The K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 970's ROP count is nearly double, which contributes to its 65.97 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the Quadro's 16.94 GPixel/s. Both use GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 970's 7 Gbps effective memory clock versus the K4100M's 3.2 Gbps effective clock explains the bandwidth gap.

API support is another differentiator. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both list OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 970's newer architecture allows for more modern API feature levels, which may matter for future-proofing in applications that leverage these interfaces.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins decisively in every direct benchmark comparison. In Geekbench Metal, it is 51% ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 69.5% ahead. These are the only two tests where both cards are measured, and the GTX 970 wins both. The GTX 970 also dominates in raw specifications: higher clocks, more shading units, more ROPs, higher bandwidth, and higher fill rates. For any application that relies on these capabilities, such as gaming, general compute, or graphics rendering, the GTX 970 is the stronger choice.

The Quadro K4100M wins in aggregate average score, posting 7,906 against the GTX 970's 7,157. It also holds a higher percentile ranking at 41 versus 39. The K4100M's narrower test suite, consisting only of Geekbench Metal and OpenCL, allows its average to remain high, but those are the exact tests where the GTX 970 dominates. The K4100M also has a lower TDP at 100 W versus 148 W, which makes it a more power-efficient option for mobile workstation deployments. Its MXM module form factor and lack of power connectors indicate it is designed for laptop integration, whereas the GTX 970 is a desktop dual-slot card requiring two 6-pin connectors.

In practical terms, the GTX 970 is the card for anyone who prioritizes performance in compute and graphics benchmarks. The K4100M is the card for a specific mobile workstation niche where its form factor and lower power draw are essential. The database's recorded data does not show a single test where the K4100M outperforms the GTX 970, so the verdict is straightforward: the GTX 970 wins on performance, while the K4100M wins on portability and aggregate consistency.