NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole common benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The K4100M scores 9,149 points, while the Quadro 5000 manages 7,289 points. That translates to a 25.5% advantage for the K4100M, a substantial margin that establishes a clear performance hierarchy between these two professional mobile-oriented graphics solutions.

Contextualizing the K4100M's score against its nearest rivals reinforces its standing. Its average benchmark score of 7,906 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (average score 7,925), and 1.7% behind both the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). This positions the K4100M as a competent performer that sits within a narrow band of its contemporaries, with its OpenCL result notably exceeding its own average, suggesting particular strength in compute workloads.

For the Quadro 5000, its average benchmark score of 7,289 is flanked by rivals that bracket it closely. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 scores 7,222, a 0.9% deficit, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile scores 7,203, a 1.2% gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 trail by 1.6% and 1.7% respectively. The data shows the Quadro 5000 holds a narrow but consistent edge over these competitors, yet it remains decisively behind the K4100M in the one benchmark where both are measured.

The percentile rankings further illustrate the separation. The K4100M sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile. Though a single percentile point separates them in overall standing, the 25.5% raw performance delta in their shared test is far more telling than that narrow percentile gap. The K4100M's victory in the head-to-head benchmark is the singular data point that matters for direct comparison, and it favors the newer card by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins with a score of 9,149, defeating the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7,289, a difference of 25.5%.

Q: How does the Quadro K4100M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, which is 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 460 (7,925), 1.7% below the Quadro P5000 (8,039), and 1.7% below the GeForce GTX 880M (8,040).

Q: What is the Quadro 5000's position relative to its closest competitors?

A: The Quadro 5000's average benchmark score of 7,289 places it 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222), 1.2% above the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203), 1.6% above the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171), and 1.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170).

Q: What are the percentile rankings for both GPUs?

A: The Quadro K4100M ranks at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 ranks at the 40th percentile.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each GPU have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1 win, while the Quadro 5000 has 0 wins.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, while the Quadro 5000 has an average of 7,289.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is foundational. The Quadro K4100M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro 5000 employs the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a significantly lower transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The K4100M fields 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Quadro 5000, by comparison, has only 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This imbalance explains the K4100M's performance advantages in shading and texturing workloads, even though the Quadro 5000 has more ROPs for pixel output. The pixel rate for the K4100M is 16.94 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s for the Quadro 5000, while texture rates stand at 67.78 GTexel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s respectively.

Raw compute throughput reinforces the architectural disparity. The K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro 5000 manages just 722.3 GFLOPS — less than half the throughput. Neither GPU offers FP16 support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K4100M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro 5000 lists no Vulkan support. This suggests the K4100M is better positioned for modern graphics API workloads.

The memory subsystems also reflect generational differences. The K4100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 320-bit bus, achieving 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having a wider bus, the Quadro 5000's older memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) limits its bandwidth advantage; the K4100M's memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The K4100M offers more capacity, while the Quadro 5000 offers slightly more bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The K4100M has a base clock of 706 MHz with a boost clock of 706 MHz, while the Quadro 5000 lists no base or boost clock data. Memory capacity differs: the K4100M holds 4 GB, the Quadro 5000 holds 2.5 GB. Memory bus width also differs, with the K4100M using 256 bit and the Quadro 5000 using 320 bit. Bandwidth figures are 102.4 GB/s for the K4100M versus 120.0 GB/s for the Quadro 5000.

Core counts show the K4100M's advantage: 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs for the Quadro 5000. Pixel rate favors the K4100M at 16.94 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 67.78 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.627 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications favor the K4100M's mobile orientation. Its TDP is 100 W with an MXM Module slot width and no power connectors. The Quadro 5000 draws 152 W, uses a dual-slot form factor, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The bus interface differs: the K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs on the K4100M are portable-device dependent, whereas the Quadro 5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro 5000 measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the K4100M lists no dimensions.

Release timing and pricing also differ. The K4100M launched on 2013-07-22 with a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD. The Quadro 5000 launched earlier on 2011-02-22 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The K4100M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M; the Quadro 5000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M. It wins the only shared benchmark by 25.5%, holds a higher average benchmark score (7,906 versus 7,289), and ranks at a slightly higher percentile (41st versus 40th). Its architecture provides over twice the shading units, nearly double the texture rate, and more than double the FP32 compute. It also offers more memory capacity and a lower TDP, making it the more efficient and capable option on paper.

The Quadro 5000's case rests on narrower grounds. It offers higher memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and more ROPs (40 versus 32), which could benefit specific pixel-heavy workloads. It also supports the same DirectX and OpenGL versions. However, its older Fermi architecture, higher power draw, and lower compute throughput place it at a fundamental disadvantage in the benchmark that matters most.

For users prioritizing compute performance, memory capacity, and efficiency, the K4100M is the superior choice. For those who specifically need higher memory bandwidth and more ROPs, the Quadro 5000 retains some relevance, but the overall performance picture heavily favors the K4100M.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4100M wins in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, which is the only direct comparison available. It also wins on shading unit count (1,152 versus 352), texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s), pixel rate (16.94 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s), and FP32 compute (1.627 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS). Its advantage extends to memory capacity (4 GB versus 2.5 GB), process node (28 nm versus 40 nm), transistor density (12.0M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²), and TDP (100 W versus 152 W). It also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 5000 does not.

The Quadro 5000 wins on memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), memory bus width (320 bit versus 256 bit), and ROP count (40 versus 32). It also has a larger die size (529 mm² versus 294 mm²) and a more conventional desktop form factor with PCIe 2.0 x16 and dedicated display outputs. Its launch MSRP was higher at 2,499 USD compared to 1,499 USD for the K4100M, though both are now end-of-life.

Use-case selection follows these strengths. The K4100M suits compute-heavy tasks, modern API workloads, and mobile or power-constrained environments. The Quadro 5000 suits scenarios where memory bandwidth and pixel output are paramount, such as certain rendering pipelines, and where a dual-slot desktop card with standard display connectivity is preferred. The benchmark data, however, shows the K4100M as the overall performance winner.