NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K2100M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M: Mobile Workstation Graphics Compared

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and Quadro 3000M represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA's mobile workstation offerings. The K2100M, built on the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, arrived in 2013 as an End-of-life product, succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M. The Quadro 3000M, based on the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, launched in 2011, succeeding the Quadro FX Mobile and paving the way for the Quadro Kepler-M. Both target the MXM mobile graphics module segment, but the data shows they are separated by a performance gap that favors the newer K2100M in raw compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M leads with an average benchmark score of 4151, compared to 3718 for the Quadro 3000M, a difference of 11.6%.

Q: What are the key API differences between the two?

A: The K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 3000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory clock?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a memory clock of 625 MHz, which is slower than the K2100M's 752 MHz. The K2100M also offers 3 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: How does the transistor count compare?

A: The K2100M uses 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The Quadro 3000M packs 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results and specification sheet carve out distinct usage scenarios for each card.

Quadro K2100M wins on: The K2100M is the clear winner in raw performance. It scores 4587 in the geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test, defeating the Quadro 3000M's 3718 by 23.4%. This advantage is consistent with its higher average score (4151 vs 3718, an 11.6% lead). It also leads in architectural efficiency, packing 2,540 million transistors into a smaller 221 mm² die, resulting in a density of 11.5M per mm². The 3000M's density is just 5.9M per mm². The K2100M also has a more modern feature set, including Vulkan API support and higher OpenGL (4.6) and DirectX (12_1) versions.

Quadro 3000M wins on: The 3000M maintains a victory in memory bandwidth, with a 256-bit bus delivering 80.00 GB/s, a solid 27.98 GB/s (or 53.8%) more than the K2100M's 128-bit interface at 48.13 GB/s. It also draws a 75W TDP, higher than the 55W of the K2100M.

Architecture Differences

The two chips belong to different NVIDIA microarchitectures. The K2100M is a Kepler-generation part, built on the GK106 chip, while the Quadro 3000M is a Fermi chip using the GF104.

The K2100M's Kepler core uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 2,540 million transistors. The 3000M's Fermi core uses a 40 nm TSMC process with 1,950 million transistors. The K2100M's die size is 221 mm², and the 3000M's die is larger at 332 mm².

Shader and texture capability differ significantly. The K2100M has 576 shading units and 48 texture mapping units (TMUs). The 3000M has 240 shading units and 40 TMUs. Pixel throughput also differs, with the K2100M rated at 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s texture rate. The 3000M posts 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s.

The K2100M also has a higher fill of ROPs with 16 to the 3000M's 8. Compute performance is much higher on the K2100M, with 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 to the 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several core fields.

| Field | K2100M | Quadro 3000M |

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

| Chip | GK106S | GF104 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Process | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,950 million |

| Die size | 221 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor density | 11.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory clock | 752 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 48.13 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 576 | 240 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| APIs | DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2 | DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 |

The K2100M has a lower TDP at 55W compared to 75W for the 3000M. Both are MXM modules with no external power connectors; display outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head record in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this run, the K2100M scored 4587, while the Quadro 3000M scored 3718. That is a decisive 23.4% win for the K2100M.

The aggregate data is consistent with this result. The K2100M's average benchmark score of 4151 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro 3000M averaged 3718, putting it in the 22nd percentile. The K2100M also sits ahead of its closest rivals: the K2100M is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and 1.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, but only 1.9% above the Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB and Intel HD 630.

For the 3000M, the closest rival is the GT 635M, with a 0.6% lead, and the GeForce 825M, which trails by 0.6%. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 is 1.9% behind the 3000M.

Looking at the database, the K2100M has one benchmark win and no losses against the Quadro 3000M. The 3000M, on the other hand, has no wins and one loss.

Performance Verdict

The data positions the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M as the higher-performance mobile workstation part. It wins the head-to-head benchmark in Geekbench OpenCL by 23.4%, and it has a higher average score. The Fermi-based Quadro 3000M has an advantage in memory bandwidth due to a wider 256-bit bus and a higher TDP, but the Kepler part counters with a denser, more efficient chip, more shading units, and a newer API stack including Vulkan. For applications that depend on raw OpenCL compute performance, the K2100M is the recorded winner. For tasks that require heavy memory bandwidth, the 3000M's 80 GB/s of bandwidth gives it a specific niche.