NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database between these two workstation cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a clear edge for the older desktop-oriented Quadro 4000. The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, while the Quadro K2100M trails at 4,587 points, giving the Fermi-based card an 8.5% lead in raw compute throughput. This is a notable margin for a GPU released roughly three years earlier, and it underscores how different the two products are in positioning and execution.

The Quadro 4000's OpenCL score places it in the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in the recorded data include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB at 4,970 points (a 0.2% gap), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 points (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 points (0.8% ahead). The Quadro 4000 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4,931 points, a 1% difference. These are tightly clustered scores, meaning the Quadro 4000 sits in a crowded performance band where small architectural and clock differences determine the ranking.

The Quadro K2100M, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 4,151 across three tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 4,587, Geekbench Vulkan at 4,343, and Geekbench Metal at 3,524. Its percentile ranking is 25th, four points lower than the Quadro 4000. The K2100M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4,170 points (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4,193 points (1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4,093 points (1.4% behind), and the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4,075 points (1.9% behind). The spread here is wider, and the K2100M sits closer to the bottom of its peer group.

In the direct head-to-head comparison, the Quadro 4000 records one win and the K2100M records none. The 8.5% delta in OpenCL is substantial enough to matter in compute-oriented workloads, though the K2100M's additional benchmark coverage shows it can handle graphics APIs like Vulkan and Metal, which the Quadro 4000 lacks in the recorded data. The database shows no Vulkan score for the Quadro 4000 and no Metal score either, so the K2100M is the more versatile card for modern API support.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations entirely. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, while the Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip, built on the Kepler architecture. This is a fundamental split: Fermi was NVIDIA's first generation of unified shader architecture with a focus on compute density, while Kepler was a re-engineered design that prioritized efficiency and higher shader counts per clock.

The manufacturing process differences are stark. The Quadro 4000 is fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm node, while the K2100M uses the 28 nm process. That node shrink allowed the K2100M to pack 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 4000, by comparison, contains 3,100 million transistors but on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The K2100M is more than twice as dense, which is a direct consequence of the newer fabrication process.

The shading unit counts reflect the architectural shift. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having more than double the shading units and 50% more TMUs, the K2100M's halved ROP count limits its pixel throughput advantage. The pixel rate for the K2100M is 8.004 GPixel/s, only marginally higher than the Quadro 4000's 7.600 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a different story: the K2100M delivers 32.02 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000, a 110% advantage in texture fill.

Raw compute in FP32 also favors the K2100M. It reaches 768.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000 peaks at 486.4 GFLOPS, a 58% difference. The K2100M's higher shading unit count and newer architecture more than compensate for its lower clock behavior. The Quadro 4000's memory clock is listed at 702 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the K2100M runs at 752 MHz with 3 Gbps effective. The bus width, however, reverses the memory bandwidth comparison: the Quadro 4000 uses a 256-bit bus for 89.86 GB/s, while the K2100M's 128-bit bus delivers only 48.13 GB/s.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K2100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan entry in the database. This makes the K2100M the more future-proof option for Linux and Windows applications that rely on Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000 wins in memory bandwidth, and that is its most significant advantage. With 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the K2100M's 48.13 GB/s, the Quadro 4000 is better suited for workloads that stream large datasets, such as high-resolution texture loading, frame buffer operations, or any compute task that is memory-bound rather than shader-bound. Its 256-bit bus gives it a structural advantage that the K2100M cannot overcome despite its faster memory clock.

The Quadro 4000 also wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The 8.5% margin suggests that its combination of higher bandwidth and larger ROP count provides a real benefit in the OpenCL compute workload as recorded. For users running OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or image processing, the Quadro 4000 is the stronger choice according to the data.

The K2100M wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 768.4 GFLOPS is 58% higher than the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS, and its shading unit count of 576 is more than double the Quadro 4000's 256. For shader-heavy workloads, such as complex vertex processing or fragment shading in CAD applications, the K2100M should deliver noticeably better performance, even if the OpenCL test does not reflect it.

The K2100M also wins on efficiency and form factor. Its TDP is 55 W, compared to the Quadro 4000's 142 W, and it requires no external power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 needs a single 6-pin connector. The K2100M is an MXM module, designed for portable workstations, while the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length. The K2100M has no listed dimensions, but its MXM format inherently suits compact laptop and mobile workstation chassis.

The K2100M's Vulkan support gives it an API advantage that the Quadro 4000 cannot match. Applications that have moved to Vulkan for cross-platform rendering will run on the K2100M but have no recorded Vulkan path on the Quadro 4000. The K2100M also has a Metal score in the database, though no corresponding Metal benchmark exists for the Quadro 4000.

Specification Differences

The most direct specification differences between the two cards are as follows:

• Process node: Quadro 4000 on 40 nm, K2100M on 28 nm.
• Transistor count: Quadro 4000 at 3,100 million, K2100M at 2,540 million.
• Die size: Quadro 4000 at 529 mm², K2100M at 221 mm².
• Transistor density: Quadro 4000 at 5.9M / mm², K2100M at 11.5M / mm².
• Base clock: K2100M has a listed 667 MHz, the Quadro 4000 has no base clock entry.
• Memory clock: Quadro 4000 at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), K2100M at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective).
• Memory bus width: Quadro 4000 at 256 bit, K2100M at 128 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: Quadro 4000 at 89.86 GB/s, K2100M at 48.13 GB/s.
• Shading units: Quadro 4000 at 256, K2100M at 576.
• TMUs: Quadro 4000 at 32, K2100M at 48.
• ROPs: Quadro 4000 at 32, K2100M at 16.
• Pixel rate: Quadro 4000 at 7.600 GPixel/s, K2100M at 8.004 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Quadro 4000 at 15.20 GTexel/s, K2100M at 32.02 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 4000 at 486.4 GFLOPS, K2100M at 768.4 GFLOPS.
• TDP: Quadro 4000 at 142 W, K2100M at 55 W.
• Slot width: Quadro 4000 single-slot, K2100M MXM module.
• Power connectors: Quadro 4000 has 1x 6-pin, K2100M has none.
• Bus interface: Quadro 4000 PCIe 2.0 x16, K2100M MXM-A (3.0).
• Display outputs: Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, K2100M is portable device dependent.
• Vulkan support: K2100M supports 1.2.175, Quadro 4000 has no entry.
• Release date: Quadro 4000 on November 1, 2010, K2100M on July 22, 2013.
• Launch MSRP: The Quadro 4000 launched at 1,199 USD. The K2100M has no recorded MSRP.

Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, so capacity is identical. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 4000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, while the K2100M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points in Geekbench OpenCL, 8.5% ahead of the Quadro K2100M's 4,587 points.

Q: Does the Quadro K2100M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the K2100M has Vulkan 1.2.175 support. The Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro 4000 delivers 89.86 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the K2100M provides 48.13 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K2100M has 576 shading units, compared to 256 on the Quadro 4000.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the K2100M has a 55 W TDP and needs no external power connectors.

Q: Are both cards the same generation?

A: No. The Quadro 4000 is based on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, while the K2100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip.