NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are two professional mobile and desktop graphics solutions from different architectural generations. The K3100M, a Kepler-based mobile part, and the Quadro 4000, a Fermi-based desktop card, represent distinct approaches to workstation performance. Benchmark data from Geekbench provides a single point of direct comparison, while architectural and specification differences illustrate the generational shift.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has a higher average benchmark score of 5154, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's average of 4979. This places the K3100M in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits in the 29th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 4000 scores 4979. This results in a 23.6% performance advantage for the K3100M, making it the clear winner in that specific head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, which is three times more than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 256 shading units. This significant difference in core count contributes to the K3100M's higher compute performance.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The K3100M has a larger memory capacity of 4 GB, while the Quadro 4000 has 2 GB. Both use GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus, but the K3100M has higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s compared to the Quadro 4000's 89.86 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The K3100M is built on a smaller 28 nm process node, while the Quadro 4000 uses a larger 40 nm process. This architectural advantage allows the K3100M to achieve higher transistor density and efficiency.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The K3100M has a transistor count of 3,540 million, which is higher than the Quadro 4000's 3,100 million. This is despite the K3100M's significantly smaller die size of 294 mm² compared to the Quadro 4000's 529 mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural eras from NVIDIA. The Quadro K3100M is based on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the Quadro 4000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip. This generational shift brings substantial changes in core design and efficiency.

The manufacturing process highlights a major advancement. The K3100M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 4000 uses a larger 40 nm process at the same foundry. This process shrink enables a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm² for the K3100M, compared to just 5.9 million per mm² for the Quadro 4000. The K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors in a much larger 529 mm² die.

Core configuration differs dramatically between the two. The K3100M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units and 32 raster operation pipelines. In contrast, the Quadro 4000 has only 256 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, though it also has 32 raster operation pipelines. This threefold difference in shading units and twofold difference in TMUs directly impacts compute and texture processing capabilities.

Memory architecture shows both similarities and differences. Both GPUs use GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus, but the K3100M offers 4 GB capacity compared to the Quadro 4000's 2 GB. The K3100M also achieves higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.86 GB/s, driven by the faster 3.2 Gbps effective memory speed compared to 2.8 Gbps.

The K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K3100M is a portable MXM module with power connectors listed as none, while the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. This gives the K3100M a decisive 23.6% lead, confirming the architectural advantages of the newer Kepler design.

This result reflects the substantial differences in core counts and compute throughput. The K3100M's 768 shading units and higher clock speeds produce a peak FP32 performance of 1,084.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000 with 256 shading units achieves only 486.4 GFLOPS. The K3100M more than doubles the raw floating-point capability of the Quadro 4000.

Texture and pixel processing rates also favor the K3100M significantly. The K3100M delivers a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s. The Quadro 4000 manages 15.20 GTexel/s and 7.600 GPixel/s respectively. These figures demonstrate the K3100M's superiority in both texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound workloads.

The benchmark data shows the K3100M wins the sole head-to-head comparison, with a win count of 1 against 0 for the Quadro 4000. The 23.6% delta percentage underscores that this is not a marginal victory but a substantial performance gap driven by architectural evolution.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node drops from 40 nm on the Quadro 4000 to 28 nm on the K3100M. Transistor count increases from 3,100 million to 3,540 million, while die size decreases from 529 mm² to 294 mm². Transistor density improves dramatically from 5.9M per mm² to 12.0M per mm².

Memory configuration changes in capacity and speed. The K3100M offers 4 GB versus 2 GB on the Quadro 4000. Effective memory speed rises from 2.8 Gbps to 3.2 Gbps, increasing bandwidth from 89.86 GB/s to 102.4 GB/s. Both retain a 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 type.

Compute resources differ substantially. Shading units increase from 256 to 768, while texture mapping units double from 32 to 64. Raster operation pipelines remain equal at 32. Peak FP32 performance more than doubles from 486.4 GFLOPS to 1,084.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications show contrasting designs. The K3100M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP, is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, and requires one 6-pin power connector. The bus interface changes from PCIe 2.0 x16 to MXM-B (3.0).

Clock specifications differ, with the K3100M listed at 706 MHz base and boost. The Quadro 4000 has no base or boost clock listed. Display outputs also vary, with the K3100M being portable device dependent and the Quadro 4000 offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every measurable performance category. Its 23.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy applications. The higher shading unit count and FP32 performance indicate superiority in general-purpose GPU computing and parallel workloads.

The K3100M also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 4 GB of memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, it can handle larger datasets and more memory-intensive textures than the Quadro 4000's 2 GB and 89.86 GB/s. This makes the K3100M better suited for modern workstation applications with larger working sets.

Efficiency is another area where the K3100M excels. Its 75 W TDP is nearly half of the Quadro 4000's 142 W, despite delivering significantly higher performance. This makes the K3100M a better option for mobile workstations where power consumption and thermal output matter.

The Quadro 4000's advantages are limited to its form factor and interface. As a single-slot PCIe card, it can be installed in desktop workstations with standard expansion slots. The K3100M requires an MXM-B slot, which is typically found only in mobile workstations or specialized systems. The Quadro 4000 also has fixed display outputs, while the K3100M's outputs depend on the portable device.

In terms of API support, the K3100M wins with Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, so those are not differentiating factors.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M across all benchmark and specification comparisons. Its 23.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with double the FP32 performance, triple the shading units, and double the memory capacity, makes it the superior choice for workstation graphics and compute tasks.

Users seeking maximum performance in a portable form factor should choose the K3100M. Its higher transistor density, smaller process node, and 75 W TDP deliver better performance per watt. The 4 GB memory capacity provides more headroom for large textures and datasets common in professional applications.

The Quadro 4000 remains relevant only for systems requiring a standard PCIe desktop card with specific display outputs. Its single-slot 241 mm form factor and 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort outputs suit fixed desktop configurations. However, its older Fermi architecture, lower core counts, and reduced memory bandwidth make it a less capable option for demanding workloads.

Given the benchmark results and architectural analysis, the Quadro K3100M is the recommended choice for most professional users. The Quadro 4000's launch MSRP of 1,199 USD reflects its original positioning, but the performance data shows the K3100M offers superior capabilities. The K3100M's higher percentile ranking of 30 versus 29 reinforces its advantage, even if both GPUs sit in the lower performance tiers of modern GPU rankings.