NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a stark contrast in raw compute capability, with the RTX 5060 Ti delivering an average benchmark score of 4970 across its suite of tests, while the Quadro K3100M averages 5154 across its own. However, these averages are not directly comparable due to different test suites, making the architectural and specification differences far more telling than any single aggregated number.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split between these two cards is defined by their respective benchmark portfolios and hardware feature sets. The Quadro K3100M, with its three recorded benchmarks, demonstrates its strength in legacy compute and mobile professional workloads. Its Geekbench scores—3823 in Metal, 6154 in OpenCL, and 5484 in Vulkan—show a balanced capability across these older API standards. This card is positioned for compatibility with established software stacks, particularly in portable workstations where its 75 W TDP and MXM module form factor allow for integration into laptops that prioritize power efficiency over brute force. The data indicates it sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, aligning closely with rivals like the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (deltaPct -0.1) and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (deltaPct -1.1), making it a competent, if unremarkable, performer for its generation.

Conversely, the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is built for modern, high-throughput workloads. Its benchmark results are dominated by DirectX and compute tasks, with a Passmark G3D score of 22618 and a GPU Compute score of 11224. These numbers, alongside its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4019, indicate a GPU designed for contemporary gaming, content creation, and AI-adjacent tasks. The presence of 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores in its specification clearly points to hardware acceleration for ray tracing and machine learning inference, features entirely absent from the Quadro. Its 29th percentile ranking places it near the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (deltaPct -0.2) and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (deltaPct -0.6), but this is a misleading comparison given the modern card’s much higher absolute performance in its own tests. The RTX 5060 Ti wins decisively in any scenario requiring current API support, high memory bandwidth, or dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is immense. The Quadro K3100M is built on the Kepler architecture using a 28 nm process from TSMC, featuring a die size of 294 mm² and a transistor count of 3,540 million. This results in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². Its configuration includes 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, which produce a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s. The card operates at a fixed clock speed of 706 MHz for both base and boost, with memory running at an effective 3.2 Gbps. It is restricted to DirectX 12 (11_0) support, though it does offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175.

In contrast, the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. Its die is significantly smaller at 181 mm² but packs far more transistors—21,900 million—yielding a density of 121.0M per mm², a tenfold increase. The chip houses 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, along with 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores. This hardware translates to a pixel rate of 123.5 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 370.4 GTexel/s. Clock speeds are substantially higher, with a base of 2407 MHz and boost of 2572 MHz, and memory runs at an effective 28 Gbps. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4. The interface also differs, with the Quadro using MXM-B (3.0) and the RTX card using PCIe 5.0 x8, reflecting the shift from mobile module to desktop expansion card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB has a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s, which is more than four times the 102.4 GB/s offered by the Quadro K3100M, despite the RTX card using a narrower 128-bit bus compared to the Quadro’s 256-bit bus.

Q: Is the RTX 5060 Ti capable of ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX 5060 Ti is equipped with 36 dedicated RT cores, which are specifically designed for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The Quadro K3100M has no such cores in its specification.

Q: How do the FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti delivers 23.70 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro K3100M provides 1,084.4 GFLOPS. This represents a roughly 22x advantage for the newer card in raw single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two cards?

A: The Quadro K3100M is marked as End-of-life, having been released in 2013, while the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is listed as Active, with a release date from 2025.

Q: Which card has a larger memory capacity?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB has 16 GB of GDDR7 memory, whereas the Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The newer card also uses a faster memory type.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W, while the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB has a TDP of 180 W. This difference reflects the significantly higher performance ceiling of the newer card.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable field. The process node differs dramatically, with the Quadro using 28 nm and the RTX card using 5 nm. Transistor count jumps from 3,540 million to 21,900 million, while die size shrinks from 294 mm² to 181 mm². The clock speeds are in different leagues: the Quadro’s base and boost are both 706 MHz, whereas the RTX card’s base is 2407 MHz and boost reaches 2572 MHz. Memory speed increases from an effective 3.2 Gbps to 28 Gbps, and memory type moves from GDDR5 to GDDR7.

The core configuration is also entirely different. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the RTX card’s 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX card introduces 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores, features that do not exist on the Quadro. Pixel rate and texture rate scale accordingly, from 11.30 GPixel/s and 45.18 GTexel/s on the Quadro to 123.5 GPixel/s and 370.4 GTexel/s on the RTX card. FP32 compute jumps from 1,084.4 GFLOPS to 23.70 TFLOPS, and the RTX card also supports FP16 at 23.70 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

Other differences include TDP (75 W vs 180 W), slot width (MXM Module vs Dual-slot), power connectors (None vs 1x 8-pin), bus interface (MXM-B 3.0 vs PCIe 5.0 x8), and display outputs (Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b). The DirectX support differs, with the Quadro limited to 12 (11_0) and the RTX card supporting 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan versions also differ, 1.2.175 versus 1.4. The RTX card has physical dimensions listed at 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the Quadro has no such dimensions listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head comparisons are impossible because the FACT PACK provides no overlapping benchmark tests between the two cards. The Quadro K3100M is evaluated only through Geekbench tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is evaluated through 3DMark and Passmark tests. However, the available data allows for an analysis of each card’s absolute performance within its own test ecosystem. The Quadro’s strongest result is its OpenCL score of 6154, which is 20% higher than its Vulkan score of 5484 and 61% higher than its Metal score of 3823. This suggests the Quadro’s compute capabilities are best utilized through OpenCL, a common trait for professional workstation cards of its era.

For the RTX 5060 Ti, the standout results are the Passmark G3D score of 22618 and the GPU Compute score of 11224. The G3D score is particularly notable, as it is roughly 18.8 times higher than the card’s Passmark DirectX 10 score of 144, illustrating the massive performance difference between older and newer DirectX API workloads. The DirectX 12 score of 89 is surprisingly low compared to the DirectX 11 score of 219, which may reflect the specific nature of the Passmark tests rather than real-world gaming performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4019 provides a more realistic measure of modern gaming capability, and when combined with the 16 GB GDDR7 memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, it positions the card as a high-end solution for contemporary titles.

The wins are lopsided in favor of the RTX 5060 Ti. In every category where both cards could theoretically compete—compute throughput, memory bandwidth, pixel fill rate, and API support—the newer card holds an overwhelming advantage. The Quadro K3100M’s only potential wins are in power efficiency (75 W TDP) and legacy software compatibility via older API versions. The RTX 5060 Ti’s average benchmark score of 4970, while lower than the Quadro’s 5154, is derived from a much more demanding test suite, and its individual scores like the 22618 G3D result dwarf anything on the Quadro’s list. The data clearly indicates that the RTX 5060 Ti is the superior performer in essentially all measurable aspects of GPU capability, with the Quadro serving as a historical artifact of mobile professional computing rather than a competitive alternative.