NVIDIA Quadro K2100M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional mobile/compact GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M takes the OpenCL compute workload, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 dominates in Vulkan graphics throughput. That is not a subtle margin either: the K2100M leads by 7.4% in OpenCL, and the P400 answers with a 17.9% advantage in Vulkan. For a buyer choosing between them, the decision hinges almost entirely on which API and workload family matters more.

The K2100M's OpenCL win suggests it holds up better in general-purpose compute tasks that rely on legacy OpenCL paths. The recorded score of 4587 against the P400's 4249 is a meaningful gap, roughly equivalent to the difference between two adjacent performance tiers in the database. If your daily driver is an OpenCL-based rendering plugin, a simulation tool, or an older professional application that has not migrated to Vulkan, the K2100M is the safer pick.

The P400, by contrast, posts a Vulkan score of 5119 versus 4343. That 776-point margin is substantial, and Vulkan is the newer, more forward-looking API. Modern CAD viewports, real-time visualization tools, and game engines increasingly use Vulkan for their viewport and preview rendering. The P400's lead here is not a small edge; it is a decisive one that will grow as more software drops OpenCL in favor of Vulkan.

Both cards win exactly one head-to-head benchmark each, so neither is a universal winner. The practical interpretation is that the P400 is the better choice for current-generation graphics APIs, while the K2100M retains an edge in older compute stacks. The database also records the P400 with a higher average benchmark score of 4684 against the K2100M's 4151, which is a 12.8% overall advantage when both benchmarks are weighted equally.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations and foundries. The P400 is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The K2100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, made by TSMC on 28 nm. That process gap is enormous in practice: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the P400 packs far more transistors per square millimeter, 25.0 million per mm² against the K2100M's 11.5 million per mm².

Transistor counts tell an interesting story. The P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The K2100M has 2,540 million transistors but on a much larger 221 mm² die. So the P400 achieves higher transistor density with a smaller physical footprint, which directly enables its lower power draw and smaller cooling requirements. The K2100M's larger, older die runs hotter and needs more power.

The compute resources are distributed very differently. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P400 has only 256 shading units and 16 TMUs, but also 16 ROPs. Despite the K2100M having more than double the shader count, the P400's much higher clock speeds close the raw throughput gap. The P400 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost, while the K2100M is locked at 667 MHz for both base and boost. That is nearly a 2x clock advantage for the P400.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K2100M uses a 128-bit bus for 48.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the P400 is constrained to a 64-bit bus for just 32.06 GB/s. The K2100M's wider memory bus gives it a 50% bandwidth advantage, which likely contributes to its OpenCL win in memory-heavy workloads. The P400 compensates with faster effective memory clocks: 4 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps on the K2100M.

The P400 supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P400 also has a significantly lower TDP of 30 W versus 55 W for the K2100M, which matters for compact workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result is the K2100M's strongest showing in the entire comparison. It scores 4587 against the P400's 4249, a delta of 7.4% in its favor. That margin is roughly in line with the K2100M's wider memory bus and higher shader count. The K2100M also has a recorded Metal benchmark score of 3524, though the P400 has no Metal result in the database, so that comparison cannot be made directly.

The Vulkan result flips the narrative completely. The P400 scores 5119, which is 17.9% higher than the K2100M's 4343. This is the largest single delta between the two cards in any shared test. The P400's architectural advantages, namely the Pascal generation's improved scheduling and the much higher clock speeds, show up clearly in Vulkan's modern driver overhead model. The K2100M's older Kepler architecture was not designed for Vulkan's explicit multi-threading model, and the benchmark reflects that.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the P400 sits at 4684 while the K2100M is at 4151. That 533-point gap is a 12.8% overall difference. The P400 ranks at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the K2100M sits at the 25th percentile. Neither card is a high-flyer, but the P400 consistently outranks its older rival in the aggregate stats.

The nearest rival data puts both cards in context. The P400's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657, which is only 0.6% below the P400, and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX is 0.9% above. The K2100M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170, which is 0.4% below it, and the Intel HD Graphics 630 is 1.9% below. These tight clusters confirm that both Quadro cards are competing in the lower mid-range of the performance spectrum.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P400 if your work involves Vulkan-based rendering, modern CAD viewports, or any application that has updated its graphics pipeline in the last few years. The 17.9% Vulkan lead is decisive, and the card's higher average benchmark score, lower power draw, and newer architecture make it the more future-proof option. The P400 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which the K2100M cannot match.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M only if you are locked into an OpenCL-only workflow and cannot migrate. The 7.4% OpenCL advantage is real and measurable, and the wider 128-bit memory bus provides 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth versus 32.06 GB/s on the P400. That bandwidth advantage matters for memory-bound compute kernels. However, the K2100M is a mobile MXM module, not a standard PCIe card, so it only makes sense in laptop or proprietary workstation chassis.

For almost all desktop or compact PCIe workstation builds, the P400 is the rational pick. It wins the more important benchmark, has a higher average score, consumes less power, and supports newer APIs. The K2100M is a product of an older era, and the data reflects that. The only scenario where the K2100M wins is one where OpenCL performance is the sole criterion and Vulkan is irrelevant.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4151. That is a 12.8% overall advantage for the P400.

Q: Is the K2100M better at any compute task?

A: Yes, in OpenCL compute the K2100M scores 4587 versus the P400's 4249, a 7.4% lead. This is likely due to its wider 128-bit memory bus providing 48.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The P400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires a 200 W suggested PSU, while the K2100M has a 55 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed in the database.

Q: Are these cards similar in physical form factor?

A: No. The P400 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with three mini-DisplayPort outputs and a 150 mm length. The K2100M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0) and display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card in the database?

A: The P400's closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0.6% below) and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.9% above). The K2100M's closest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170 (0.4% below) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 (1.9% below).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P400 | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Chip | GP107 | GK106S |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1252 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 752 MHz, 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 48.13 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 576 |

| TMUs | 16 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.03 GPixel/s | 8.004 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.03 GTexel/s | 32.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 641.0 GFLOPS | 768.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 30 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | Not listed |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2017-02-06 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Quadro Maxwell-M |