GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro K1100M are separated by more than a generation of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive, though not complete, shift in capability. The P1000 is the unequivocal performance winner in the available head-to-head tests, delivering over four times the OpenCL score of the older K1100M. However, the K1100M is not without a niche: its lower transistor count and older Kepler architecture are tied to a much lower thermal design power, making it a potential fit for legacy mobile workstation configurations where minimal power draw is paramount. The data ultimately suggests that for any modern workload leveraging compute or Vulkan APIs, the P1000 is the only rational choice; the K1100M should only be considered when its specific form factor or power profile is a hard requirement.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: choose the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 unless a specific legacy constraint forces otherwise. In the two directly comparable benchmark tests, the P1000 wins both decisively. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13584 is 343.9% higher than the K1100M’s 3060, a margin that dwarfs any other comparison in this analysis. The Vulkan gap, while smaller, is still enormous: 7739 versus 2884, a 168.3% advantage for the P1000. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

The K1100M’s only statistical merit is its lower 45 W TDP compared to the P1000’s 47 W. This 2-watt difference is negligible for almost all real-world scenarios, especially considering the P1000’s massive performance advantage. The K1100M also holds a lower percentile rank (18th vs. 20th) and a lower average benchmark score (2664 vs. 3163). For a professional user, the P1000’s higher performance ceiling and modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs. 1.2.175) make it the superior investment, even if the K1100M is technically an "end-of-life" product like its successor. The K1100M is a relic for niche, low-power mobile deployments; the P1000 is a capable, if dated, entry-level workstation card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000, with an average benchmark score of 3163, versus the K1100M’s 2664. This places the P1000 at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, while the K1100M sits at the 18th.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance difference between the two cards significant?

A: Yes. The P1000 scores 7739 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 168.3% higher than the K1100M’s 2884. This indicates the P1000 is substantially better suited for modern, low-level graphics APIs.

Q: What is the architectural generation gap between these two products?

A: The P1000 is built on the Pascal architecture (14 nm process), while the K1100M uses the older Kepler architecture (28 nm process). This is a primary driver of the performance difference.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The P1000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K1100M provides 2 GB of GDDR5 with 44.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the P1000’s higher memory clock (5 Gbps effective vs. 2.8 Gbps) gives it a significant bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The P1000 has 640 shading units, compared to the K1100M’s 384. This directly contributes to the P1000’s higher compute and texture throughput.

Q: Are both cards considered end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M have a production status of "End-of-life" according to the data.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gulf between these two GPUs is the primary reason for their performance disparity. The P1000 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This is a stark contrast to the K1100M’s Kepler architecture, which uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The move to a smaller process node allows the P1000 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The K1100M, by comparison, contains only 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of just 10.8M / mm². This density advantage is a direct driver of the P1000’s higher performance.

The compute core configurations diverge sharply. The P1000 features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The K1100M is significantly pared down, with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This means the P1000 can handle more parallel threads and fill rate work simultaneously. The P1000’s peak pixel rate is 47.36 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s, dwarfing the K1100M’s 5.648 GPixel/s and 22.59 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute performance tells a similar story: the P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS, while the K1100M manages only 542.2 GFLOPS.

Another critical architectural difference lies in API support. The P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K1100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The newer API versions on the P1000 enable more efficient draw calls and better utilization of modern rendering techniques. Both cards share the same OpenGL 4.6 support. The P1000 also has a distinct feature: support for FP16 compute at 29.60 GFLOPS, whereas the K1100M has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the P1000 more versatile for emerging workflows that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards reveal a clear generational upgrade path. The most obvious difference is memory capacity: the P1000 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5, double the K1100M’s 2 GB. Memory bandwidth also favors the P1000 at 80.19 GB/s versus the K1100M’s 44.80 GB/s. The clock speeds tell the story of efficiency and performance. The P1000 has a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the K1100M is locked at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. The memory clock is similarly divergent, with the P1000 running at 5 Gbps effective versus the K1100M’s 2.8 Gbps.

In terms of physical and power characteristics, the differences are notable but not extreme. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W and is a single-slot card with a length of 150 mm and a height of 69 mm. It uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The K1100M is an MXM Module (MXM-A 3.0 interface) with a TDP of 45 W. It has no listed dimensions or suggested PSU, as it is designed for portable devices. The display outputs also differ: the P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K1100M’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop manufacturer.

Finally, the release dates are separated by nearly four years. The K1100M was released in July 2013, while the P1000 launched in February 2017. The P1000’s predecessor is listed as "Quadro Maxwell" and its successor as "Quadro Volta," while the K1100M’s lineage runs from "Quadro Fermi-M" to "Quadro Maxwell-M." This places the two cards in entirely different product cycles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison data is sparse but conclusive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P1000 achieves a score of 13584, which is 343.9% higher than the K1100M’s 3060. This is a dominant victory, indicating that the P1000 has over four times the raw compute power for general-purpose GPU workloads. The Vulkan test shows a similar, though less extreme, pattern. The P1000 scores 7739, a 168.3% improvement over the K1100M’s 2884. This confirms that the P1000’s architectural advantages translate directly to better performance in modern, low-level graphics APIs.

The P1000 also wins on aggregate metrics. Its average benchmark score of 3163 is nearly 19% higher than the K1100M’s 2664. In terms of percentile ranking, the P1000 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the K1100M’s 18th percentile. When looking at the nearest rivals, the P1000’s closest competitor is the Intel Arc Pro B60, which scores an average of 3182, a mere 0.6% difference. The K1100M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, with an average score of 2662, a 0.1% delta. This suggests that while the K1100M is competitive with its immediate peers, the P1000 operates in a slightly higher performance tier. The wins tally in the head-to-head is 2 for the P1000 and 0 for the K1100M.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark victories for the P1000 are comprehensive, but a nuanced look at the data reveals specific use cases where each card holds an advantage. The P1000 is the clear winner for any workload that stresses compute or modern graphics APIs. Its 343.9% lead in OpenCL makes it the obvious choice for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or data processing. The 168.3% lead in Vulkan positions it as the superior option for CAD applications, real-time visualization, or any software that leverages Vulkan for high-performance graphics. The 4 GB memory buffer and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth also give it a significant edge when handling larger textures or datasets.

The K1100M, despite losing every benchmark, has a narrow theoretical advantage in one area: power consumption. With a 45 W TDP versus the P1000’s 47 W, it draws slightly less power. This could be relevant in extremely power-constrained mobile workstations, but the 2-watt difference is unlikely to be a deciding factor in real-world use. Its MXM module form factor is another distinguishing feature. For a laptop that specifically requires an MXM-A card, the K1100M might be the only compatible option from this pair, even if its performance is far inferior. However, this is a compatibility win, not a performance win. The data shows that in every measurable benchmark, the P1000 is the superior product. The K1100M’s only valid use case is a legacy system where its specific physical interface is mandatory and the performance penalty is accepted.