NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the clear performance leader in this comparison, dominating the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M in every shared benchmark. The database records only two head-to-head tests between these mobile GPUs, and the GTX 970M wins both by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against 4,587 for the Quadro K2100M, a 313% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even larger at 321.2%, with scores of 18,292 versus 4,343.

The GTX 970M belongs to a different performance tier entirely. Its average benchmark score sits at 4,628, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2100M averages 4,151 and lands in the 25th percentile. Interestingly, the nearest rival to the GTX 970M is the AMD Radeon R5 M320, which scores 4,657, a marginal 0.6% higher. The Quadro K2100M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4,170, just 0.4% ahead, and it also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1% (4,193).

The choice depends entirely on workload expectations. The GTX 970M is the pick for anyone whose tasks stress OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, as it delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in those APIs. The Quadro K2100M is the only option here for Metal-based workloads, since the GTX 970M has no recorded Metal benchmark in the database. For general compute and graphics acceleration, the GTX 970M is the only sensible selection based on the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations. The GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation. The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip based on Kepler architecture, hailing from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the GTX 970M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the Quadro K2100M contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. Transistor density favors the newer Maxwell part at 13.1M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² for Kepler.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The GTX 970M runs at a 924 MHz base clock with a 1,038 MHz boost, while the Quadro K2100M is locked at 667 MHz with no boost headroom. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 970M's GDDR5 runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K2100M's GDDR5 operates at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem is drastically different. The GTX 970M offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2100M provides only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 970M, which directly impacts texture-heavy and compute workloads.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Pixel fill rate for the GTX 970M is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s for the Quadro K2100M. Texture fill rate stands at 83.04 GTexel/s versus 32.02 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) reaches 2.657 TFLOPS on the GTX 970M, compared to 768.4 GFLOPS on the Quadro K2100M, a 3.5x difference.

API support also differentiates the pair. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970M also carries a higher-tier DirectX feature level. Both use MXM module slots, but the GTX 970M uses MXM-B (3.0) while the Quadro K2100M uses the smaller MXM-A (3.0). The Quadro K2100M has a documented 55 W TDP, while the GTX 970M's TDP is not recorded in the database. Both are end-of-life products with no power connectors required.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and both are landslides. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M posts 18,946 points against 4,587 for the Quadro K2100M. That is a 313% delta, meaning the GTX 970M delivers more than four times the OpenCL compute performance. This result aligns with the hardware gap: the GTX 970M has 2.2x the shading units, 3.5x the FP32 throughput, and 2.5x the memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider margin. The GTX 970M scores 18,292, while the Quadro K2100M manages 4,343. The delta reaches 321.2%, making Vulkan the single biggest comparative win for the GTX 970M in the recorded data. The Quadro K2100M does have one exclusive benchmark in the database: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 3,524. The GTX 970M has no Metal result recorded, so the Quadro K2100M is the only one of the two with measurable Metal performance.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the database also contains a broader benchmark suite for the GTX 970M. It records a 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) score of 472, a Passmark G3D score of 5,704, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,289. In legacy DirectX tests, the GTX 970M scores 99 in Passmark DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 28 in DirectX 10, and 24 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G2D score is 381. The Quadro K2100M has no equivalent Passmark entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for those workloads.

The average benchmark scores contextualize the pair further. The GTX 970M averages 4,628 overall, which puts it 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621) and 1.1% above the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577). The Quadro K2100M averages 4,151, which is 1.9% above the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4,075) and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4,093). The GTX 970M's average is 11.5% higher than the Quadro K2100M's average, a meaningful gap that tracks with the head-to-head results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 313% higher than the Quadro K2100M's 4,587.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the GTX 970M wins both. The Quadro K2100M has one exclusive benchmark, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 3,524, but there is no GTX 970M Metal result for comparison.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the architecture generations?

A: The GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip from the GeForce 900M generation. The Quadro K2100M uses Kepler architecture on the GK106S chip from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 18,292 in Geekbench Vulkan, 321.2% higher than the Quadro K2100M's 4,343. The Quadro K2100M supports the older Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their compute resources differ?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 2.657 TFLOPS FP32. The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 768.4 GFLOPS FP32.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins in every measured category that both GPUs share. Its OpenCL and Vulkan results are roughly four times those of the Quadro K2100M, which makes it the obvious choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, rendering, and any application that leverages those APIs. The 6 GB frame buffer also gives it substantially more headroom for large textures and datasets compared to the 2 GB Quadro K2100M. The GTX 970M's 120.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 48.13 GB/s further cements its advantage in memory-bound workloads.

The Quadro K2100M's only recorded edge is its Metal benchmark presence. With a Geekbench Metal score of 3,524, it is the only one of the two GPUs with verifiable Metal performance in the database. For macOS or iOS development environments that require Metal acceleration, the Quadro K2100M at least has a measurable baseline, whereas the GTX 970M has no recorded Metal result. The Quadro K2100M also carries a documented 55 W TDP, while the GTX 970M's power draw is unrecorded, so the Quadro K2100M may be the safer pick for thermally constrained chassis where power limits are a priority.

The GTX 970M's average benchmark score of 4,628 places it just below the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB (both 4,657), and slightly above the Quadro M3000M. The Quadro K2100M's average of 4,151 sits just above the Intel HD Graphics 630 and below the GTX 1050 Ti. In practical terms, the GTX 970M competes with lower-end desktop and mobile parts from its era, while the Quadro K2100M sits closer to integrated graphics territory.

For gaming, the GTX 970M's DirectX 12 (12_1) support and higher fill rates make it the only credible option. The Quadro K2100M's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a generation behind in feature level. For workstation tasks that rely on OpenGL, both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 970M's 3.5x FP32 advantage will show in any compute-heavy OpenGL workload.

The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 970M is the superior GPU in nearly every facet measured. The Quadro K2100M is only relevant in scenarios where Metal compatibility is required, where its lower 55 W power envelope is a constraint, or where the older MXM-A form factor is the only option. Every other workload points to the GTX 970M.