NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains one directly comparable compute test between these two mobile graphics solutions: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 52,998 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M manages 11,771 points. That is a 77.8% deficit for the older Quadro, meaning the RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers roughly 4.5 times the raw OpenCL throughput. This is not a marginal generational step; it is a complete overhaul in compute capability.

Looking at the broader database averages, the picture remains lopsided but with a nuance. The Quadro K5100M posts an average benchmark score of 10,043 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, despite its dominant OpenCL win, has an average score of 8,746 and sits at the 44th percentile. The discrepancy arises because the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s average includes several Passmark tests with low scores, such as 61 in DirectX 10 and 55 in DirectX 12, which pull its mean down. The Quadro’s two Geekbench results (Metal and OpenCL) are more consistent, so its average does not suffer from outlier low scores.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize each card. The Quadro K5100M sits within a tight cluster: AMD Radeon R9 M375 is 0.3% ahead, AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is 0.3% behind, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M is 0.8% ahead, and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is 2% behind. This suggests the K5100M is a mid-pack performer among its contemporaries, with no single rival dominating it by more than 2%. The RTX 3050 A Mobile, by contrast, is bracketed by NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 0% delta, NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 0.7% ahead, AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 1.2% ahead, and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 1.3% ahead. The RTX card’s average is essentially dead even with a GTX 460 v2, which is a much older desktop part, indicating that its average score understates its peak OpenCL capability.

The single head-to-head result tells the real story: in OpenCL, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is not just faster, it is in a different league. The Quadro’s 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is less than half of the RTX card’s 4.813 TFLOPS. This raw compute gap directly explains the 77.8% delta in the OpenCL benchmark. The Quadro does have a higher texture fill rate at 98.69 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s, which could help in certain texture-bound workloads, but that advantage does not appear in the recorded compute test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 52,998 versus 11,771 for the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, a 77.8% margin.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10,043 compared to 8,746 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile. However, the RTX card’s average is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores, while its OpenCL result is far superior.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K5100M ranks in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile ranks in the 44th percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 1,792 shading units, while the Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 A Mobile support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX 3050 A Mobile has 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores. The Quadro K5100M has no RT or tensor cores, as it is based on the older Kepler architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its OpenCL score of 52,998 versus 11,771 is the clearest evidence. The card’s 4.813 TFLOPS FP32 performance, nearly double the Quadro’s 2.369 TFLOPS, makes it the obvious choice for GPGPU tasks, machine learning inference (with tensor cores), or any application that leverages modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4. The RTX card also has a higher pixel rate at 42.98 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s, which benefits rasterization at high resolutions.

The Quadro K5100M holds advantages in specific areas. Its texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s is 31% higher than the RTX card’s 75.21 GTexel/s, which could benefit texture-heavy rendering workloads that are not compute-bound. The Quadro also has double the VRAM (8 GB versus 4 GB) and a wider 256-bit memory bus, which helps when datasets or textures exceed the RTX card’s 4 GB capacity. For legacy applications that rely on OpenGL 4.6 or older DirectX 11_0 feature levels, the Quadro remains functional, though its Vulkan support is capped at 1.2.175 versus 1.4 for the RTX card. The Quadro’s average benchmark score is also higher at 10,043 versus 8,746, indicating more consistent performance across a mixed workload suite.

In summary, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the choice for modern, compute-intensive, or ray-traced workloads. The Quadro K5100M remains relevant only for scenarios that demand large memory pools or high texture throughput in legacy applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The Quadro K5100M is built on the GK104 chip with a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm node. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the RTX card has 12,000 million transistors on a smaller 276 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro versus 43.5M per mm² for the RTX card.

Clock speeds also favor the newer part. The Quadro runs at a fixed 771 MHz base and boost, whereas the RTX 3050 A Mobile has a 1,065 MHz base and 1,343 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro uses 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective, while the RTX card runs at 1,500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem itself is different: 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the Quadro versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for the RTX card. Despite the narrower bus, the RTX card achieves higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,536 for the Quadro versus 1,792 for the RTX card. Texture mapping units differ: 128 for the Quadro versus 56 for the RTX card. Both have 32 ROPs. The RTX card adds 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 42.98 GPixel/s for the RTX card. Texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 75.21 GTexel/s for the RTX card. FP32 throughput is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS. The RTX card also supports FP16 at 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 capability listed.

Power consumption flips the expected order: the Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is rated at just 45 W. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the RTX card is IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Both lack power connectors and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support differs: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175; the RTX card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans three generations of NVIDIA design. The Quadro K5100M uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK104) from the Quadro Kepler-M generation. Kepler was designed around a traditional shader array without dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware. The process node is 28 nm, and the die is 294 mm². The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the Ampere architecture (chip GA106) from the GeForce 30 Mobile generation. Ampere introduces hardware ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the Quadro completely lacks.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. The Quadro is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm node, while the RTX card uses Samsung’s 8 nm node. This process shrink enables the RTX card to pack 12,000 million transistors into a smaller 276 mm² die, achieving a density of 43.5M transistors per mm² versus 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro. The newer process also contributes to the RTX card’s significantly lower TDP of 45 W despite delivering more than double the FP32 throughput.

The memory architecture also reflects generational change. The Quadro uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the RTX card uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus. The newer GDDR6 standard allows the RTX card to achieve higher bandwidth (192.0 GB/s) on a narrower bus, thanks to its 12 Gbps effective data rate versus 3.6 Gbps for the Quadro. The RTX card also supports a 1:1 FP16 compute ratio, which Kepler-era GPUs did not offer.

API support highlights the evolution. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) support is limited to feature level 11_0, while the RTX card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), enabling features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading. Vulkan support jumps from 1.2.175 on the Quadro to 1.4 on the RTX card. The RTX card’s 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based workloads, which are entirely absent from the Kepler architecture. The production status for both is end-of-life, but the Quadro was released in 2013 and has a successor (Quadro Maxwell-M), while the RTX card was released at the end of 2023 and has no listed successor.