NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is a dramatically faster graphics processor than the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M. In the two compute tests where both cards were measured, the GTX 980 wins by a wide margin, with performance deltas of 127.6% and 279%. This is not a close contest; the GTX 980 is in a different performance tier entirely, despite both cards being end-of-life products built on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available comes from two Geekbench compute tests, and the results are decisively in favor of the GTX 980. In the Geekbench Metal test, the GTX 980 scores 15163, while the Quadro K4100M scores 6662. This gives the GTX 980 a 127.6% advantage, meaning it is more than twice as fast as the Quadro in this API. The gap widens even further in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 980 scores 34676 against the Quadro’s 9149. That is a 279% delta, indicating the GTX 980 delivers nearly four times the OpenCL performance of the K4100M.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy, although they also place both cards in a surprisingly modest overall context. The GTX 980 has an average benchmark score of 8167, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K4100M trails with an average score of 7906, sitting at the 41st percentile. The delta between their average scores is small—roughly 3.3%—but this is skewed by the limited benchmark set for the Quadro, which only includes the two Geekbench tests. The GTX 980’s average is pulled from a broader range of tests, including PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, PassMark G2D/G3D, and GPU compute, where it shows a more varied performance profile.

Looking at the GTX 980’s individual benchmarks, its PassMark G3D score is 11095, which is its strongest showing and indicates solid DirectX 11 rasterization performance. Its PassMark GPU compute score is 4753, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 22543, showing capable compute and modern API support. The Quadro K4100M has no comparable scores in these tests, so its overall average is less representative. When comparing the two head-to-head, the GTX 980’s wins are absolute: it takes 2 out of 2 shared benchmarks, with no tests where the Quadro comes out ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 wins in every measurable category where both cards were tested. In Geekbench Metal, the 127.6% lead means the GTX 980 is the clear choice for any workload leveraging Apple’s Metal API, which is often used in creative and compute applications. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 279% advantage makes the GTX 980 overwhelmingly superior for general-purpose GPU compute, including tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, and data processing that rely on OpenCL.

The Quadro K4100M, on the other hand, does not win any head-to-head test. However, its profile suggests a different intended use case. As a mobile workstation part in an MXM module format with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, the K4100M is designed for portability and integration into laptops, not raw performance. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are identical in capacity to the GTX 980 but half the bandwidth, indicating it targets professional applications where memory capacity matters more than speed. The GTX 980, with a 165 W TDP and dual-slot cooler, is a desktop part that prioritizes performance over power efficiency.

For users needing maximum compute throughput in a stationary system, the GTX 980 is the only option between the two. For those requiring a mobile workstation GPU with professional driver support, the Quadro K4100M is the sole choice, but its performance is severely limited relative to the GTX 980. The data shows no scenario where the Quadro outperforms the GTX 980 in raw compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is significantly faster, scoring 34676 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a 279% advantage for the GTX 980.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Metal?

A: The GTX 980 scores 15163, while the Quadro K4100M scores 6662. This gives the GTX 980 a 127.6% lead, meaning it is over twice as fast in Metal-based workloads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The GTX 980 has an average benchmark score of 8167, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K4100M has an average score of 7906, at the 41st percentile.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both the GTX 980 and the Quadro K4100M feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. However, the GTX 980’s memory bandwidth is 224.4 GB/s, while the Quadro’s is 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors, while the Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors. The GTX 980 also has a larger die size at 398 mm² versus 294 mm².

Q: What is the DirectX support for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 980 has Vulkan 1.4 support compared to the Quadro’s Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in core specifications. The GTX 980 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro K4100M is far leaner, with 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains why the GTX 980’s pixel rate is 77.82 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. The GTX 980’s FP32 compute is 4.981 TFLOPS, almost triple the Quadro’s 1.627 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds also diverge. The GTX 980 runs at a base clock of 1127 MHz with a boost of 1216 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at a flat 706 MHz with no boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the GTX 980 uses 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the Quadro uses 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The GTX 980’s memory bandwidth is 224.4 GB/s, more than double the Quadro’s 102.4 GB/s.

Power and physical design are opposites. The GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. It measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Quadro K4100M, by contrast, is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions. The GTX 980 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the GTX 980 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 980 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, while the Quadro K4100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the GTX 980 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1M transistors per mm². The Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M per mm². This indicates the Maxwell design is more efficient at packing transistors, likely contributing to its higher performance.

The GTX 980 belongs to the GeForce 900 generation and is part of the Maxwell 2.0 family, succeeding the GeForce 700 series. The Quadro K4100M is from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 980’s successor is the GeForce 10 series, while the Quadro’s successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, indicating the GTX 980 has more modern API support. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The Verdict

The data leads to an unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is the superior performer by every measurable metric. Its 279% lead in OpenCL and 127.6% lead in Metal are massive, and its higher core counts, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth all point to a GPU designed for demanding compute and gaming workloads. The GTX 980’s average benchmark score of 8167 is higher than the Quadro’s 7906, and it achieves a 43rd percentile rank versus the Quadro’s 41st.

The Quadro K4100M is not without purpose, but its role is niche. As a 100 W MXM module with no power connectors, it is built for mobile workstations where space and power are constrained. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory matches the GTX 980, but its bandwidth is half, and its compute is roughly one-third. For professional mobile use, the K4100M offers a balance of memory capacity and low power draw, but it cannot compete with the GTX 980’s raw throughput.

Anyone seeking maximum performance for compute-heavy tasks, modern gaming, or API flexibility should choose the GTX 980. Its higher TDP of 165 W and dual-slot requirement are acceptable trade-offs for the 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. For users who need a mobile GPU with professional driver characteristics and can accept far lower performance, the Quadro K4100M is the only option, but the benchmark data shows it is a significant compromise. The GTX 980 is the clear winner, and the Quadro is best suited for specialized, power-limited environments where its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor are essential.