NVIDIA Quadro K2100M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from NVIDIA’s Kepler-M generation. They share the same architecture, process node, and shading unit count, but the data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between the two. The benchmark results, while limited to a single common test, show that the newer K2100M holds a measurable edge in raw compute output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241. The delta percentage is -7.5%, meaning the K3000M trails the K2100M by 7.5% in this specific workload. This is a straightforward win for the K2100M, and it establishes the K2100M as the faster part in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL.

To put these scores into context, each GPU’s nearest rivals provide a useful frame of reference. The K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 places it just 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282). It is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). This indicates that the K3000M sits in a tight cluster of similarly performing GPUs, with performance differences of roughly one to two percent either way. The K2100M, with an average benchmark score of 4151, is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093). It is also 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075). The K2100M’s position among these rivals shows that it is competitive with entry-level discrete and integrated solutions, though its standing is slightly lower than the K3000M’s when compared to their respective peer groups.

The discrepancy between the head-to-head OpenCL score (where the K2100M wins by 7.5%) and the average benchmark score (where the K2100M’s 4151 is lower than the K3000M’s 4241) is notable. This is because the K2100M’s average includes additional benchmarks — Geekbench Metal (3524) and Geekbench Vulkan (4343) — which are not available for the K3000M. The OpenCL result is the only apples-to-apples comparison, and it favors the K2100M. The K3000M’s higher average score is an artifact of having only one benchmark entry, not an indication of superior performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the winner in the single test where both GPUs are measured. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 4587 versus 4241 demonstrates that the K2100M delivers higher compute throughput in this API. This suggests that for applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration — such as certain rendering, simulation, or data-processing tasks — the K2100M would provide a noticeable performance advantage.

There are no benchmark wins for the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M in the head-to-head data. However, this does not mean the K3000M is without merit. Its average benchmark score of 4241 is higher than the K2100M’s average of 4151, which reflects the fact that the K3000M’s single recorded score is more consistent with its peer group. Where the K2100M may falter is in APIs other than OpenCL; its Metal score of 3524 is significantly lower than its OpenCL score of 4587, and its Vulkan score of 4343 falls between the two. The K3000M has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results, so it is impossible to say how it would perform in those APIs. The data only supports the conclusion that the K2100M wins in OpenCL, while the K3000M’s single score is competitive with its nearest rivals.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL performance, the K2100M is the clear choice. For those who value consistency across a broader set of benchmarks, the K3000M’s single score suggests it is a stable performer, but the lack of additional test data limits the strength of that conclusion.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. However, they use different chips. The K3000M is based on the GK104 chip, while the K2100M uses the GK106S chip. This difference in chip design leads to several notable specification variations.

The K3000M’s GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The K2100M’s GK106S chip has 2,540 million transistors on a smaller 221 mm² die, giving a slightly lower transistor density of 11.5M / mm². Despite the smaller chip, the K2100M has the same number of shading units (576) and texture mapping units (48) as the K3000M. The difference lies in the render output units: the K3000M has 32 ROPs, while the K2100M has only 16 ROPs. This halving of ROPs is a significant architectural distinction that affects pixel throughput.

Clock speeds also differ. The K3000M runs at a base and boost clock of 654 MHz for both values, while the K2100M runs slightly faster at 667 MHz for both. The memory clocks differ as well: the K3000M’s memory runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the K2100M’s memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). However, the memory bus width is the key differentiator. The K3000M has a 256-bit bus, while the K2100M has a 128-bit bus. This leads to a substantial bandwidth gap: the K3000M delivers 89.60 GB/s, while the K2100M delivers only 48.13 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

The power characteristics also differ. The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the K2100M has a lower TDP of 55 W. Both use an MXM Module slot width, but the bus interface differs: the K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the K2100M uses MXM-A (3.0). Neither requires power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The API support is identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 for both.

The compute rates reflect the clock and ROP differences. The K3000M achieves a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 753.4 GFLOPS. The K2100M achieves a slightly higher pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 768.4 GFLOPS. This means the K2100M is marginally faster in pixel, texture, and FP32 throughput despite having half the ROPs, due to its higher clocks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more render output units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 32 ROPs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 16 ROPs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The K3000M has a 256-bit bus and delivers 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K2100M has a 128-bit bus and delivers 48.13 GB/s.

Q: Does the K2100M outperform the K3000M in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K2100M scores 4587 compared to the K3000M’s 4241, a 7.5% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The K2100M has a higher FP32 performance at 768.4 GFLOPS, compared to the K3000M’s 753.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Are there any differences in power consumption?

A: Yes, the K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the K2100M has a lower TDP of 55 W.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti?

A: The K3000M is 1.2% ahead of the GTX 1050 Ti, while the K2100M is 1% behind it.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M for compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4587 is 7.5% higher than the K3000M’s 4241, and its FP32 performance of 768.4 GFLOPS edges out the K3000M’s 753.4 GFLOPS. The K2100M also achieves higher pixel and texture rates, at 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s for the K3000M. For anyone running OpenCL-based applications, the K2100M is the superior choice.

However, the K3000M is not without advantages. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly double the K2100M’s 48.13 GB/s. This makes the K3000M the better option for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks, even though its raw compute scores are lower. The K3000M also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16), which could benefit certain rendering workloads that are fill-rate limited. Additionally, the K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 is higher than the K2100M’s average of 4151, indicating that the K3000M’s single measured result is more aligned with its peer group.

The choice between the two depends on the workload. If the priority is maximum OpenCL compute performance, the K2100M wins outright. If the priority is memory bandwidth and ROP throughput, the K3000M holds the edge. The K2100M also consumes less power, with a TDP of 55 W versus 75 W for the K3000M, which may be a consideration in thermally constrained mobile chassis. Ultimately, the data supports the K2100M as the faster GPU for general compute, while the K3000M remains relevant for bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GK106S |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 654 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 654 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 48.13 GB/s |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 8.004 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 32.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 753.4 GFLOPS | 768.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 55 W |

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

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2013-07-22 |