NVIDIA Quadro K2100M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along generational lines. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, with wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The M3000M holds a 262.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 283.8% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. Those are not marginal differences; they indicate a completely different performance class.

The Quadro K2100M does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database. Its only competitive showing appears in its average benchmark score relative to its own nearest rivals, where it sits within 1.9% of the Intel HD Graphics 630 and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. That places the K2100M among lower-tier mobile GPUs, whereas the M3000M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (0.1% behind) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (0.8% behind). The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 is 11.3% higher than the K2100M's 4151.

For use-case selection, the M3000M is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL acceleration or Vulkan-based rendering. The K2100M, by contrast, offers no scenario in the data where it outperforms the M3000M. Its lower power envelope (55 W versus 75 W) may suit thermally constrained chassis, but the performance penalty is substantial. The M3000M also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (27th versus 25th), meaning it sits above a larger share of the installed base.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The M3000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0, while the K2100M uses the GK106S chip built on Kepler. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The K2100M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, for a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The M3000M's die is nearly twice as large and holds more than double the transistors.

Clock behavior also differs. The M3000M runs at an 823 MHz base clock with a 924 MHz boost, while the K2100M runs at a flat 667 MHz with no boost above base. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: the M3000M uses 1253 MHz memory with 5 Gbps effective data rate, versus 752 MHz with 3 Gbps effective on the K2100M. The memory subsystem is wider on the M3000M (256-bit versus 128-bit), and the bandwidth gap is enormous: 160.4 GB/s versus 48.13 GB/s.

Shading resources scale accordingly. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M3000M's pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 32.02 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS on the M3000M versus 768.4 GFLOPS on the K2100M. Neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores.

API support differs in a few places. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the M3000M reaches DirectX feature level 12_1 while the K2100M only reaches 11_0. Vulkan support is also newer on the M3000M (version 1.4) versus the K2100M (version 1.2.175). The bus interface differs as well: the M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K2100M uses MXM-A (3.0). Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M. Its 256-bit bus and 1253 MHz memory clock produce 160.4 GB/s, compared to the K2100M's 128-bit bus and 752 MHz clock, which yield 48.13 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs the same age?

A: No. The K2100M was released in July 2013, while the M3000M arrived in August 2015. The M3000M is the successor generation to the K2100M, which belongs to the Kepler-M line, while the M3000M belongs to the Maxwell-M line.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: 1.4 on the M3000M versus 1.2.175 on the K2100M.

Q: How large is the compute performance gap?

A: The M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 768.4 GFLOPS on the K2100M. That is a 2.46x difference in raw floating-point capability.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same power draw?

A: No. The M3000M has a 75 W TDP, while the K2100M has a 55 W TDP. The M3000M consumes more power but delivers substantially higher performance.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, compared to 576 on the K2100M. It also has more TMUs (64 versus 48) and more ROPs (32 versus 16).

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: GM204 (M3000M) versus GK106S (K2100M)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 versus Kepler
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) versus Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)
• Transistors: 5,200 million versus 2,540 million
• Die size: 398 mm² versus 221 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.1M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 823 MHz versus 667 MHz
• Boost clock: 924 MHz versus 667 MHz
• Memory clock: 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective versus 752 MHz / 3 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s versus 48.13 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 576
• TMUs: 64 versus 48
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 29.57 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 59.14 GTexel/s versus 32.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.892 TFLOPS versus 768.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W versus 55 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0)
• DirectX version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan version: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: August 2015 versus July 2013
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M versus Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: Quadro Pascal-M versus Quadro Maxwell-M

Fields that are identical: manufacturer (NVIDIA), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR5), slot width (MXM Module), power connectors (none), display outputs (portable device dependent), production status (end-of-life), and the absence of RT cores, tensor cores, FP16 support, and launch MSRP data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. Both use Geekbench workloads, and both are decisive wins for the M3000M.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16,646 against the K2100M's 4,587. The delta is 262.9%, meaning the M3000M is roughly 3.6 times faster. This is the smaller of the two gaps, but it is still a multi-generational leap. The K2100M's OpenCL score sits closer to its own average benchmark score of 4,151 than to the M3000M's result. The M3000M's OpenCL score is also well above its own average of 4,621, indicating that OpenCL is a particularly strong workload for Maxwell 2.0.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the M3000M scores 16,668 against the K2100M's 4,343. The delta is 283.8%, an even wider margin than OpenCL. The K2100M's Vulkan score is actually slightly lower than its OpenCL score, while the M3000M's Vulkan score is slightly higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the Maxwell architecture handles modern API workloads more efficiently, whereas the Kepler GPU sees a small regression when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan.

The M3000M's Vulkan result of 16,668 is the single highest benchmark score recorded for either GPU in the head-to-head set. The K2100M's best head-to-head score is its OpenCL result of 4,587, which is still less than a third of the M3000M's OpenCL score.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the standalone benchmark data reinforces the pattern. The M3000M has scores in Passmark DirectX 9 (98), DirectX 10 (26), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 12 (23), G2D (402), G3D (5,543), and GPU compute (2,139). The K2100M has no Passmark scores in the database, only Geekbench Metal (3,524), OpenCL (4,587), and Vulkan (4,343). The M3000M's G3D score of 5,543 is particularly notable: it exceeds the K2100M's highest recorded score (4,587) by over 20%.

The average benchmark score gap, 4,621 versus 4,151, understates the true performance difference because the K2100M's averages include only three tests, while the M3000M's average spans nine tests. In the direct comparisons that exist, the M3000M is never challenged. The K2100M's only advantage in the entire dataset is its lower TDP (55 W versus 75 W) and its earlier release date, neither of which translates into a performance win.