NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared benchmark tests where both GPUs were measured under identical conditions. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins both, and the margins are decisive.

In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 980 scores 15,163 points against the Quadro K5100M’s 8,315 points. That is a delta of 45.2% in favor of the GTX 980, meaning the GeForce card delivers roughly 82% higher raw Metal performance. The gap is even larger in Geekbench OpenCL: the GTX 980 posts 34,676 points, while the Quadro K5100M manages 11,771 points. The delta here is 66.1%, so the GTX 980 is nearly three times faster in this compute-oriented workload.

The K5100M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 10,043, placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375, scores 10,070 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is 0.3% behind at 10,013. The K5100M sits just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 0.8% lower) and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, 2% lower). These figures show the Quadro is a mid-pack performer, competitive with mobile gaming GPUs from its era but not a top-tier part.

The GTX 980, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 8,167, which puts it at the 43rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are all within a narrow band: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 8,135 (0.4% lower), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8,129 (0.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M scores 8,099 (0.8% lower), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 8,080 (1.1% lower). This is an unusual situation: the GTX 980’s average is dragged down by its very low scores in Passmark’s DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests (164, 53, 83, and 46 respectively), which are likely legacy or synthetic workloads that do not reflect its real compute strength. The Geekbench scores tell a different story, and those are the only tests shared directly with the K5100M.

Interpreting the head-to-head data, the GTX 980’s OpenCL advantage is the clearest signal of architectural superiority. A 66.1% delta in a cross-platform compute benchmark is not a marginal difference; it reflects a fundamentally more capable execution engine. The Metal test, while also favoring the GTX 980, shows a smaller but still substantial 45.2% lead. The database records no shared gaming or DirectX benchmarks, so conclusions about rasterization performance must be inferred from the compute and API-level numbers available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins with a score of 15,163 versus the Quadro K5100M’s 8,315, a delta of 45.2% in favor of the GTX 980.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K5100M scores 11,771. That is a 66.1% delta, making the GTX 980 roughly three times faster in this workload.

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

A: The Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10,043, which is at the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 980 has an average of 8,167, at the 43rd percentile.

Q: Why does the GTX 980 have a lower average score if it wins the head-to-head tests?

A: The GTX 980’s average includes several Passmark DirectX tests (DX9: 164, DX10: 53, DX11: 83, DX12: 46) that score very low, pulling its mean down. The K5100M has no such low outliers in its recorded benchmarks, so its average is higher despite losing both shared tests.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The GTX 980 uses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the K5100M uses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 980 also has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm².

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980 provides 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K5100M provides 115.2 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 980’s memory runs at 7 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps effective on the K5100M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K5100M is built on Kepler (chip GK104), while the GTX 980 uses Maxwell 2.0 (chip GM204). Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor density differs: 12.0M transistors per mm² for the K5100M and 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 980. The GTX 980 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, versus 3,540 million on a 294 mm² die for the K5100M.

The shading unit count is substantially higher on the GTX 980: 2,048 shading units versus 1,536. Texture mapping units are identical at 128 each, but the GTX 980 doubles the ROP count to 64 versus 32. This directly explains the pixel rate difference: the GTX 980 achieves 77.82 GPixel/s, while the K5100M manages 24.67 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the GTX 980 at 155.6 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput, measured as FP32, is more than doubled on the GTX 980: 4.981 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance. The API support differs slightly: the K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and a newer Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and speed. The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but at 3.6 Gbps effective, yielding 115.2 GB/s. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 7 Gbps effective, yielding 224.4 GB/s. So the GTX 980 has nearly double the bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK104 (K5100M) vs GM204 (GTX 980)
• Architecture: Kepler vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) vs GeForce 900
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 5,200 million
• Die size: 294 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.0M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 771 MHz vs 1127 MHz
• Boost clock: 771 MHz vs 1216 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) vs 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s vs 224.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 1536 vs 2048
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel rate: 24.67 GPixel/s vs 77.82 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 98.69 GTexel/s vs 155.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.369 TFLOPS vs 4.981 TFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W vs 165 W
• Slot width: MXM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 2x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 450 W
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan version: 1.2.175 vs 1.4
• DirectX version: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Dimensions: Not listed for K5100M; GTX 980 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide
• Release date: 2013-07-22 vs 2014-09-18
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M vs GeForce 700
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M vs GeForce 10
• Launch MSRP: None listed for K5100M; GTX 980 listed at 549 USD

The K5100M is a mobile MXM module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, while the GTX 980 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. In every shared benchmark, the GTX 980 wins by a wide margin: 45.2% in Geekbench Metal and 66.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its raw compute capabilities, measured at 4.981 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.369 TFLOPS, more than double those of the K5100M. The GTX 980 also delivers 224.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 115.2 GB/s, and its pixel rate (77.82 GPixel/s) is over three times higher.

The K5100M’s advantages are limited to memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB) and power efficiency (100 W TDP versus 165 W). It also holds a higher average benchmark score (10,043 versus 8,167) and a higher percentile rank (48th versus 43rd), but this is driven by the GTX 980’s unusually low Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores, which do not appear in the head-to-head comparison. In the only direct comparisons available, the GTX 980 dominates.

The GTX 980 is the correct choice for any workload that relies on compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4). Its 549 USD launch MSRP reflects a desktop-class part with a dual-slot cooler and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The K5100M, by contrast, is an end-of-life mobile module (MXM-B 3.0) that trades raw speed for a 100 W envelope and 8 GB of VRAM, which may suit specific professional applications that need large memory but not peak performance.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark results, the GTX 980 is the unambiguous winner. For those constrained by mobile form factors or needing double the memory capacity, the K5100M remains a viable, if slower, option. The recorded data does not support any scenario where the K5100M outperforms the GTX 980 in shared tests, so the verdict is straightforward: choose the GTX 980 for speed, choose the K5100M only if its mobile footprint and 8 GB capacity are non-negotiable requirements.