NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly seven years of architectural evolution. The MX350 is a modern, power-efficient Pascal-based chip designed for thin-and-light laptops, while the K5100M is a high-end Kepler-era workstation part built for maximum throughput. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the Quadro K5100M winning decisively in raw compute performance, but the story is more nuanced when considering the entire specification landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are starkly one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 manages 8,689 points. This translates to a delta of -26.2% for the MX350, meaning the Quadro K5100M is roughly a quarter faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is a significant margin, placing the MX350 at a clear disadvantage for any OpenCL-accelerated tasks like video encoding or scientific simulation.

However, context is critical. The MX350’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 10,883, which is actually higher than the K5100M’s average of 10,043. This discrepancy suggests that the MX350 performs better in other test categories (such as Vulkan, where it scores 13,077) than it does in OpenCL, while the K5100M’s strengths are more concentrated. The K5100M’s average score is buoyed by its OpenCL result and a Metal score of 8,315, but it lacks a Vulkan result, which is a modern API that the MX350 supports natively.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the two GPUs are nearly tied. The MX350 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5100M is at the 48th percentile. This indicates that despite the K5100M’s OpenCL win, neither card is a standout performer in the broader market; they both occupy the mid-range of the performance spectrum. The MX350’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (average score 10,804, a mere 0.7% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, 1.1% higher). On the other side, the K5100M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, just 0.3% lower), showing how tightly packed this performance tier is.

The K5100M’s victory in OpenCL is not a fluke; it is a reflection of its hardware. With 1,536 shading units versus the MX350’s 640, the Quadro has more than double the compute cores. Its FP32 throughput of 2.369 TFLOPS outpaces the MX350’s 1.879 TFLOPS by roughly 26%, which aligns almost exactly with the observed benchmark delta. This is a textbook case where raw hardware specifications translate directly into measurable performance gains in a compute-heavy test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The MX350 is built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The K5100M uses the much older Kepler architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is monumental: the MX350’s die is only 132 mm², while the K5100M’s is 294 mm², despite the K5100M housing only slightly more transistors (3,540 million versus 3,300 million). The transistor density tells the story—the MX350 achieves 25.0 million transistors per mm², exactly double the K5100M’s 12.0 million per mm². This means the MX350 packs similar computational resources into half the physical space, evidence of process node advancements.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The MX350 runs at a base clock of 1354 MHz with a boost up to 1468 MHz. The K5100M is locked at a flat 771 MHz for both base and boost, which is nearly half the MX350’s base frequency. Despite this clock disadvantage, the K5100M’s massive core count (1,536 shading units versus 640) allows it to win in raw throughput. The MX350’s higher clocks are a direct result of the 14 nm process, which permits higher frequencies at lower power consumption.

Memory subsystems are another point of clear divergence. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s. The K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, quadrupling the bus width and more than doubling the bandwidth to 115.2 GB/s. Memory clock rates also differ, with the MX350 running at 7 Gbps effective versus the K5100M’s 3.6 Gbps effective. The K5100M’s larger memory pool and wider bus make it far more suitable for large datasets, such as complex 3D scenes or high-resolution textures, while the MX350’s smaller footprint may bottleneck in those scenarios.

Feature support reflects their respective eras. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX350 also includes FP16 support at 29.36 GFLOPS (with a 1:64 ratio), while the K5100M has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the MX350 more future-proof for applications leveraging modern APIs and half-precision compute, despite its lower overall peak FP32 performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is significantly faster, scoring 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the MX350’s 8,689, a 26.2% advantage.

Q: Does the MX350 have a higher overall benchmark average?

A: Yes, the MX350’s average benchmark score is 10,883, which is higher than the K5100M’s 10,043, despite losing the OpenCL test.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB on a 64-bit bus, with only 56.06 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, while the K5100M is rated at 100 W. The MX350’s 14 nm process and lower core count contribute to its dramatically lower power draw.

Q: Are both GPUs considered end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life in production status, though the MX350 was released later (February 2020) than the K5100M (July 2013).

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, giving the MX350 a modern API advantage.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal almost no overlap in key parameters. The most consequential difference is the shading unit count: the K5100M has 1,536 units versus the MX350’s 640, a 2.4x advantage. Texture mapping units (TMUs) follow the same pattern, with the K5100M offering 128 TMUs against the MX350’s 32. Render output units (ROPs) are 32 on the K5100M versus 16 on the MX350. This leads to a texture fill rate of 98.69 GTexel/s for the K5100M, more than double the MX350’s 46.98 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are closer—24.67 GPixel/s for the K5100M versus 23.49 GPixel/s for the MX350—thanks to the MX350’s higher clocks.

Memory configurations are polar opposites. The MX350 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective, while the K5100M uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR5 at 3.6 Gbps effective. This results in bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s for the MX350 and 115.2 GB/s for the K5100M. The process node difference is also listed explicitly: 14 nm Samsung for the MX350 versus 28 nm TSMC for the K5100M. Die sizes are 132 mm² versus 294 mm², and transistor densities are 25.0M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm². Clock speeds are 1354-1468 MHz for the MX350 versus a static 771 MHz for the K5100M. Power consumption is 20 W versus 100 W. The MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module form factor. The MX350 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K5100M is capped at Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). Only the K5100M lists FP16 as null, while the MX350 has a dedicated FP16 figure.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the outright winner for raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 26.2% lead in OpenCL and its superior FP32 throughput of 2.369 TFLOPS. Its 8 GB memory pool and 256-bit bus make it the obvious choice for workloads that demand large data sets and high bandwidth, such as professional 3D rendering or scientific computing. The K5100M’s higher TDP of 100 W is a non-issue for a workstation laptop that is typically plugged in, and its MXM-B form factor suggests it was designed for modular, high-performance mobile workstations.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350, however, is the better choice for modern, everyday use in thin-and-light laptops. Its 20 W TDP makes it vastly more power-efficient, and its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with the latest game and application APIs. While it loses in OpenCL, its higher average benchmark score (10,883 vs 10,043) indicates it is more balanced across different test types. The MX350’s 14 nm process and higher clocks (up to 1468 MHz boost) also suggest better sustained performance in short bursts, which is common in consumer workloads. For a user who prioritizes battery life, modern API support, and general-purpose performance over raw compute, the MX350 is the superior product. For a user who needs maximum compute throughput and memory capacity for professional tasks, the K5100M’s legacy strengths remain relevant. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the priority is efficiency and modernity or raw, uncompromising compute power.