NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data separates these two mobile workstation GPUs cleanly, with the newer NVIDIA Quadro K3100M taking the only head-to-head win in the available test suite. The Quadro K3100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6154 against the Quadro 4000M's 5211, a 15.3% advantage. The Quadro 4000M, however, posts a slightly higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests at 5211 versus 5154 for the K3100M, though this is within the noise of typical run-to-run variance.

The K3100M's victory is not marginal — a 15.3% lead in raw compute throughput is substantial for two GPUs that occupy the same 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Both cards sit at the 30th percentile, meaning neither is a performance outlier, but within that band the K3100M clearly has more compute headroom. The Quadro 4000M's only recorded benchmark is OpenCL, while the K3100M also posts scores in Metal (3823) and Vulkan (5484), indicating broader API support and more modern driver capabilities.

For users focused purely on OpenCL workloads — GPU compute, rendering, or scientific simulation — the K3100M is the definitive pick. The Quadro 4000M has no countervailing benchmark win to point to. The data is one-sided: one benchmark, one winner, with a double-digit margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent two distinct NVIDIA architectures separated by a full generation. The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the 4000M fits 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die. The resulting transistor density tells the story — 12.0M transistors per mm² for Kepler versus 5.9M per mm² for Fermi.

The shading engine scales accordingly. The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K3100M more than doubles the shader count and adds eight more TMUs, while both maintain the same 32 ROP count. Clock behavior also differs: the K3100M lists a base clock of 706 MHz with an identical boost clock of 706 MHz, while the 4000M has no listed base or boost clock in the data. Memory clocks differ too — the K3100M runs its GDDR5 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the 4000M.

Memory capacity doubles on the newer card: 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth scales accordingly, from 80.00 GB/s on the 4000M to 102.4 GB/s on the K3100M. The K3100M also adds Vulkan API support (version 1.2.175), which the 4000M lacks entirely. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Power draw is counterintuitive: the K3100M has a 75 W TDP despite its larger transistor count and higher performance, while the 4000M draws 100 W. Both use MXM-B 3.0 bus interfaces, have no power connectors, and are portable-device dependent for display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear winner. The Quadro K3100M scores 6154 against the Quadro 4000M's 5211, a delta of 15.3% in favor of the K3100M. This is the only direct comparison available, but it aligns with the architectural gap — 768 shading units versus 336, 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.00 GB/s, and nearly double the FP32 throughput.

The K3100M's FP32 rating is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the 4000M, a 69.8% advantage in theoretical peak compute. Pixel rate also favors the newer card: 11.30 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, a 70% lead. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s, a 69.8% advantage. These theoretical numbers align with the measured OpenCL result, though the 15.3% benchmark delta is smaller than the theoretical gap suggests, likely due to memory latency, driver overhead, or workload characteristics.

Looking at nearest rivals, both cards sit in a tight cluster. The 4000M's closest rivals are the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -0.5% relative to the 4000M), the Radeon R7 M260X (5161, +1%), the K3100M itself (5154, +1.1%), and the GeForce 940M (5284, -1.4%). The K3100M's rivals are nearly the same set: the R7 M260X (5161, -0.1% relative to the K3100M), the 4000M (5211, -1.1%), the GTX 760M (5236, -1.6%), and the Radeon R7 240 (5063, +1.8%). Both cards are within roughly 2% of each other in average score, yet the K3100M's OpenCL score is decisively higher. This suggests the average benchmark score is dragged down by the K3100M's Metal and Vulkan results, which are lower than its OpenCL performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro K3100M, scoring 6154 versus 5211 for the Quadro 4000M, a 15.3% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175). The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, more than double the 336 shading units on the Quadro 4000M.

Q: Are these cards power-hungry?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP, while the Quadro K3100M has a lower 75 W TDP despite being the faster card.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: Both sit in the 30th percentile among all GPUs. The 4000M's average score of 5211 is within 1.1% of the K3100M's 5154 average, and both are closely matched with the GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and Radeon R7 M260X (5161).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF104 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 3,540 million |

| Die size | 332 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Memory clock | 625 MHz / 2.5 Gbps effective | 800 MHz / 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 336 | 768 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 638.4 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Vulkan API | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | 2011-02-21 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Maxwell-M |

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Quadro K3100M is the stronger GPU for modern workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 15.3%, doubles the memory capacity, more than doubles the shading units, and delivers higher theoretical throughput across pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32. The K3100M also adds Vulkan support, a modern API absent from the 4000M, and does all of this at a lower 75 W TDP versus the 4000M's 100 W.

The Quadro 4000M's sole advantage is a marginally higher average benchmark score of 5211 versus 5154, a 1.1% difference that reflects a single OpenCL test against a broader test suite for the K3100M. That edge is not meaningful for real-world selection. The 4000M is an older Fermi-generation part with half the VRAM, half the shader count, and no Vulkan path.

For users running OpenCL compute tasks, the K3100M is the clear choice — 15.3% faster in the direct comparison. For users needing Vulkan support, the K3100M is the only option between the two. For users with legacy Fermi-specific driver requirements or those constrained by a 100 W power budget that the 4000M fits, the older card remains functional but offers no performance justification. The K3100M wins on compute, memory, features, and efficiency. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the Quadro K3100M unless a specific workload requires the 4000M's specific Fermi-generation characteristics, which the benchmark data does not support.