NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M. The K3100M scores 6154, while the K4000M trails at 5986, a margin of 2.7%. This is a modest gap, not a generational leap, but it is consistent across the architecture's characteristics. The K3100M's advantage in this single test suggests that raw compute throughput, as measured by OpenCL workloads, leans toward the newer mobile part.

Looking at the broader database, the K4000M's average benchmark score is 5986, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (a delta of 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% ahead of the K4000M), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.2% behind the K4000M). The K4000M essentially sits in a dead heat with these cards, all within a 0.2% band. The GeForce GTX 770M also appears at 6000, again virtually identical. This clustering tells an important story: the K4000M is not an outlier; it is a firmly mid-pack mobile workstation GPU whose OpenCL performance is indistinguishable from several desktop and mobile contemporaries.

The K3100M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5154, which lands it in the 30th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (0.1% ahead of the K3100M), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.6% ahead). The AMD Radeon R7 240 trails at 5063, with the K3100M 1.8% ahead of it. The K3100M's average is dragged down by its additional benchmark entries: a Geekbench Metal score of 3823 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5484, neither of which the K4000M has recorded. The OpenCL score of 6154 is the K3100M's strongest result.

The data implies a nuanced picture. In the single shared metric, the K3100M wins by a small but real margin. However, the K4000M's percentile ranking is higher (34 versus 30), and its average score is higher (5986 versus 5154). The K4000M's average is based on one test, while the K3100M's is based on three, so the averages are not directly comparable in a meaningful way. The head-to-head result, though, is unambiguous: the K3100M is 2.7% faster in OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental DNA. Each is built on NVIDIA's GK104 chip, uses the Kepler architecture, and is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 3,540 million, and the die size is the same at 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. This is the same physical silicon, but configured differently.

The K4000M deploys 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The K3100M reduces the shading units to 768 and the TMUs to 64, while keeping the ROPs at 32. That is 192 fewer shaders and 16 fewer TMUs on the K3100M, a substantial cut in parallel processing resources. Yet the K3100M compensates with higher clocks. Its base and boost clock is 706 MHz, compared to 601 MHz on the K4000M. The memory clock is also higher: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

The result is a trade-off. The K4000M's larger shader count gives it a higher theoretical peak pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s, versus 11.30 GPixel/s on the K3100M. Its texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s, ahead of the K3100M's 45.18 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS on the K4000M, compared to 1,084.4 GFLOPS on the K3100M. In every raw throughput metric, the K4000M is ahead. The K3100M's only specification advantage is memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, a direct result of its higher memory clock.

Neither GPU supports ray tracing or tensor cores; both are pure rasterization parts. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs marked as "Portable Device Dependent." The production status for both is end-of-life.

The power envelope differs notably. The K4000M is rated at 100 W TDP, while the K3100M draws 75 W. That 25 W reduction on the K3100M is significant for a mobile workstation, as it implies less heat and potentially longer battery life, though the database does not record battery or thermal data. The architectural question is whether the K3100M's lower power draw and higher bandwidth are worth the loss of shader throughput and texture rate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, with a score of 6154 versus 5986 for the K4000M, a 2.7% difference in favor of the K3100M.

Q: Why does the K4000M have higher FP32 compute if it loses the OpenCL test?

A: The K4000M's FP32 peak is 1,153.9 GFLOPS, higher than the K3100M's 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The OpenCL result reflects real-world workload behavior, not just peak theoretical throughput. The K3100M's higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s) may help in memory-bound OpenCL tasks.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip?

A: Yes, both are built on the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, using 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die at 28 nm.

Q: What is the memory configuration on each card?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus. The K4000M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The K3100M runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power draws compare?

A: The K4000M is rated at 100 W, while the K3100M is rated at 75 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The K4000M has 960 shading units, while the K3100M has 768. The K4000M also has 80 TMUs versus 64 on the K3100M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields, all traceable to the same GK104 silicon:

• Base/Boost Clock: K4000M at 601 MHz; K3100M at 706 MHz.
• Memory Clock: K4000M at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective); K3100M at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: K4000M at 89.60 GB/s; K3100M at 102.4 GB/s.
• Shading Units: K4000M at 960; K3100M at 768.
• Texture Mapping Units: K4000M at 80; K3100M at 64.
• Pixel Rate: K4000M at 12.02 GPixel/s; K3100M at 11.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: K4000M at 48.08 GTexel/s; K3100M at 45.18 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Compute: K4000M at 1,153.9 GFLOPS; K3100M at 1,084.4 GFLOPS.
• TDP: K4000M at 100 W; K3100M at 75 W.
• Release Date: K4000M on 2012-05-31; K3100M on 2013-07-22.

Fields that remain identical: 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, 3,540 million transistors, 294 mm² die, 4 GB memory, GDDR5 type, 256 bit bus, 32 ROPs, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175, end-of-life production status, and Quadro Maxwell-M as the successor.

Where Each One Wins

The K4000M wins on raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 1,153.9 GFLOPS is 6.4% higher than the K3100M's 1,084.4 GFLOPS. It also leads in pixel rate (12.02 versus 11.30 GPixel/s) and texture rate (48.08 versus 45.18 GTexel/s). For workloads that are heavily shader-bound or texture-bound, such as certain rendering passes or compute tasks that do not rely on memory bandwidth, the K4000M's larger execution resource pool gives it a theoretical edge.

The K3100M wins on the only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 2.7%. It also leads in memory bandwidth, 102.4 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, a 14.3% advantage. Its lower TDP of 75 W versus 100 W makes it more attractive for thermal-constrained mobile chassis. The higher memory clock and bandwidth could benefit workloads that stream large datasets, such as texture-heavy scenes or certain OpenCL kernels that saturate memory.

In terms of ecosystem context, the K4000M's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score, meaning its performance is typical for its class. The K3100M's nearest rivals are generally lower-scoring, with the GeForce GTX 760M only 1.6% ahead, so the K3100M is competitive with slightly faster peers despite its lower percentile ranking.

One caveat: the K3100M has recorded Metal and Vulkan scores (3823 and 5484, respectively), while the K4000M has no entries for those APIs. This does not mean the K4000M cannot run them; it means the database lacks data. The Vulkan score of 5484 is notably higher than the Metal score, suggesting API-specific performance characteristics on the K3100M.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. In the single head-to-head benchmark, the K3100M is the winner by a 2.7% margin. If the question is simply which card performs better in Geekbench OpenCL, the answer is the K3100M. Its higher memory bandwidth and clock speed overcome its reduced shader count in that specific workload.

However, the K4000M holds the theoretical compute crown. Its FP32 peak is higher, its pixel and texture rates are higher, and it has 20% more shading units. For applications that scale with shader count and texture throughput, the K4000M's architecture is better suited. Its 100 W TDP is a trade-off, but for a workstation where performance is prioritized over power efficiency, that is acceptable.

The K3100M is the more balanced mobile part. It delivers competitive OpenCL performance, draws 25 W less power, and offers significantly more memory bandwidth. Its release date is over a year later (2013-07-22 versus 2012-05-31), which may explain its refined clock settings.

For buyers, the choice depends on workload. Those running OpenCL-heavy tasks or needing maximum memory bandwidth in a thermally constrained laptop should lean toward the K3100M. Those who prioritize peak FP32 and texture throughput, and have the power budget, will find the K4000M more compelling. The database's percentile rankings favor the K4000M (34 versus 30), but that ranking is based on different benchmark sets. In the only direct comparison available, the K3100M comes out ahead, and that is the most decisive evidence on record.