NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M?

A: The GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK records an average benchmark score of 9474, while the Quadro K4100M scores 7906. This places the TITAN BLACK 19.8% higher in overall average performance, with the TITAN BLACK sitting at the 46th percentile of all GPUs and the Quadro K4100M at the 41st percentile.

Q: In which benchmark does the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK show its largest advantage over the Quadro K4100M?

A: The largest recorded win is in Geekbench Metal, where the TITAN BLACK scores 24172 versus 6662 for the Quadro K4100M, a 262.8% delta. The Geekbench OpenCL test also shows a substantial gap, with the TITAN BLACK at 27218 and the Quadro K4100M at 9149, a 197.5% difference.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these two cards?

A: The GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the Quadro K4100M has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two cards?

A: The TITAN BLACK features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), versus 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor count and die size?

A: The TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.6M / mm² for the TITAN BLACK and 12.0M / mm² for the Quadro.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The TITAN BLACK has 2880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and use a 28 nm process from TSMC, but they diverge significantly in chip design and scale. The TITAN BLACK is based on the GK110B chip, which is a large, high-performance silicon with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip, which packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die. Transistor density is close between them, 12.6M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², but the total scale difference is roughly double in favor of the TITAN BLACK.

The TITAN BLACK operates at a base clock of 889 MHz with a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the Quadro K4100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost. This clock advantage compounds across the entire compute pipeline. The TITAN BLACK delivers 5.645 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, more than three times the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS. Pixel fill rate is 58.80 GPixel/s for the TITAN BLACK versus 16.94 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and texture rate is 235.2 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is also fundamentally different. The TITAN BLACK carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 102.4 GB/s. This is a 3.3x bandwidth advantage for the TITAN BLACK, which matters for large frame buffers and compute workloads that stream data heavily.

Power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The TITAN BLACK is a dual-slot desktop card with a 250 W TDP, requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width. The Quadro K4100M is an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable device dependent display outputs. The TITAN BLACK offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Quadro's outputs depend on the host laptop.

API support is nearly identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_1 for the TITAN BLACK, 11_0 for the Quadro), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The TITAN BLACK's DirectX 12 feature level is slightly higher. Both are end-of-life products, with the TITAN BLACK released in 2014-02-17 and the Quadro K4100M in 2013-07-22. The TITAN BLACK's generation is GeForce 700, while the Quadro is from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK outperforms the Quadro K4100M in every recorded benchmark. Out of two head-to-head tests, the TITAN BLACK wins both, with deltas of 262.8% in Geekbench Metal and 197.5% in Geekbench OpenCL. The average benchmark score reinforces this, 9474 versus 7906, a 19.8% gap. The percentile ranking also favors the TITAN BLACK: 46th versus 41st among all GPUs.

For users who need raw compute throughput, the TITAN BLACK is the clear choice. Its 5.645 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 2880 shading units provide a substantial margin over the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS, 102.4 GB/s, and 1152 shading units. The TITAN BLACK also offers more memory, 6 GB versus 4 GB, which helps in large datasets.

The Quadro K4100M has one practical advantage: its form factor and power envelope. As an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP, it fits into mobile workstations, whereas the TITAN BLACK is a dual-slot desktop card requiring substantial cooling and a 600 W PSU. For laptop-based professional work, the Quadro is the only option of the two. However, on pure performance metrics, the TITAN BLACK dominates.

The TITAN BLACK also shows a stronger competitive position relative to its nearest rivals. Its average score of 9474 sits 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 760 (9458), 1.7% above the Radeon R7 M380 (9313), 1.7% below the Quadro K5000 (9637), and 1.8% below the GeForce GTX 960M (9645). The Quadro K4100M, by contrast, sits 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 460 (7925), 1.7% below the Quadro P5000 (8039), 1.7% below the GeForce GTX 880M (8040), and 1.8% below the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). The TITAN BLACK is competitive with a broad range of desktop GPUs, while the Quadro trails several mobile and older desktop parts.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip, while the Quadro K4100M uses GK104. Transistor count is 7,080 million versus 3,540 million, and die size is 561 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm².

Clock speeds show the TITAN BLACK at 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, while the Quadro stays at 706 MHz for both. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 384 bit versus 256 bit, and bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Compute resources differ sharply: 2880 shading units versus 1152, 240 TMUs versus 96, and 48 ROPs versus 32. Pixel rate is 58.80 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s, texture rate is 235.2 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 5.645 TFLOPS versus 1.627 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs diverge completely. TDP is 250 W versus 100 W. The TITAN BLACK is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU; the Quadro is an MXM Module with no connectors and no suggested PSU. The TITAN BLACK has dimensions of 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 38 mm width; the Quadro has none recorded. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for the TITAN BLACK, versus portable device dependent for the Quadro.

DirectX support is 12 (11_1) for the TITAN BLACK and 12 (11_0) for the Quadro, a minor difference. Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The TITAN BLACK was released on 2014-02-17, the Quadro on 2013-07-22. The TITAN BLACK's predecessor is GeForce 600 and successor is GeForce 900; the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, and both show overwhelming wins for the TITAN BLACK. In Geekbench Metal, the TITAN BLACK scores 24172 against 6662 for the Quadro K4100M, a 262.8% delta. This is the largest relative gap in the database for these two cards. The Metal API test tends to exercise compute and graphics throughput heavily, and the TITAN BLACK's combination of 2880 shading units, higher clocks, and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth produces a massive margin.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK scores 27218 versus 9149 for the Quadro, a 197.5% delta. OpenCL is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute capability, and the TITAN BLACK's 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than three times the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS. The memory bandwidth difference, 336.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, also feeds into OpenCL workloads that move large buffers.

Beyond the direct head-to-head tests, the broader benchmark sets show the TITAN BLACK's consistency. Its Passmark G3D score is 9184, Passmark DirectX 11 is 73, DirectX 10 is 47, DirectX 12 is 34, DirectX 9 is 133, G2D is 595, and GPU compute is 3726. The Quadro K4100M has no recorded Passmark scores in the database, so comparison is limited to the two Geekbench tests.

The TITAN BLACK's average benchmark score of 9474 places it within a narrow competitive band: 0.2% above the GTX 760, 1.7% above the R7 M380, 1.7% below the Quadro K5000, and 1.8% below the GTX 960M. The Quadro K4100M's average of 7906 places it 0.2% below the GTX 460, 1.7% below the Quadro P5000, 1.7% below the GTX 880M, and 1.8% below the GTX 650 Ti. This means the TITAN BLACK competes with mid-range desktop GPUs from its era, while the Quadro K4100M trails several older and lower-tier parts.

The wins are decisive: 2 for the TITAN BLACK, 0 for the Quadro K4100M. No benchmark in the recorded data shows the Quadro ahead. For any workload that can use the TITAN BLACK's compute resources, the performance gap is large enough to be immediately noticeable. The Quadro K4100M's only mitigating factor is its mobile MXM form factor and 100 W TDP, which suit it for laptop deployments where the TITAN BLACK cannot physically fit.