NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two mobile workstation GPUs cleanly. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the dominant part in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and its average benchmark score of 6049 sits well above the K3100M's 5154. The P2000 wins both direct comparisons, with a 227% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 329.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Anyone choosing strictly from these measurements should pick the P2000 without hesitation.

The K3100M is not without a role, however. Its percentile rank of 30 versus the P2000's 35 shows both sit in the lower-middle range of all GPUs, but the older part trails in raw compute and API support. The data suggests the K3100M remains relevant only for legacy software environments or systems locked to its MXM-B form factor. The P2000 belongs in any scenario where performance, modern API coverage, and display flexibility are the priorities.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process with 4,400 million transistors in a 200 mm² die. The K3100M uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, fabricated on 28 nm with 3,540 million transistors across a larger 294 mm² die. This is a two-generation leap in process technology and microarchitecture, which explains much of the performance difference.

Transistor density tells the story: the P2000 packs 22.0M transistors per mm², while the K3100M manages only 12.0M per mm². That density advantage, combined with architectural improvements, lets the P2000 deliver far more work per clock and per watt. The Pascal generation brought significant compute and memory efficiency gains over Kepler, and the benchmark scores reflect that.

Feature support also diverges sharply. The P2000 exposes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The newer Vulkan version on the P2000 is a meaningful upgrade for modern graphics workloads. The K3100M lacks the FP16 capabilities that the P2000 provides at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), which matters for certain compute tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison data is lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20125 against the K3100M's 6154, a 227% advantage. That is not a marginal win; it is a generational gap. OpenCL workloads that stress raw compute throughput will see the P2000 finish in a fraction of the time.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even wider margin. The P2000 posts 23566, while the K3100M manages 5484, a 329.7% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that exposes hardware efficiency more directly, and the Pascal architecture's superior geometry processing, shading throughput, and memory subsystem shine here. The K3100M's Kepler design was never optimized for Vulkan, and the data confirms that.

The P2000 also wins on broader benchmark coverage. It has nine recorded benchmark entries, including PassMark DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9 tests, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute scores. The K3100M only has three recorded entries (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), and its Metal score of 3823 is not comparable to anything on the P2000's list. This asymmetry means the K3100M's average of 5154 is based on fewer data points, but the head-to-head results are unambiguous.

Specification Differences

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the P2000. It has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s. The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 102.4 GB/s. The P2000's memory clock runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) on the K3100M. The wider bus on the older card cannot compensate for the much lower clock speed.

Compute resources differ significantly. The P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, while the K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s on the P2000 versus 11.30 GPixel/s on the K3100M, a 5.2x difference. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s, roughly 2.1x. FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS, nearly 2.8x in favor of the P2000.

Other differences: the P2000 runs at a 1076 MHz base clock and 1480 MHz boost, while the K3100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0) and has portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both are 75 W TDP, but the P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the K3100M is an MXM module. The P2000 measures 196 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the K3100M has no recorded dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5154. The P2000 also holds a higher percentile rank at 35 versus 30.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20125 compared to the K3100M's 6154, which is a 227% advantage for the P2000.

Q: Does the K3100M win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. Across the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the P2000 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The K3100M has zero wins in the direct comparison data.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The P2000 delivers 140.2 GB/s from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The K3100M delivers 102.4 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P2000 also has FP16 support at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), which the K3100M lacks.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The P2000 was released in 2017, while the K3100M was released in 2013.

Where Each One Wins

The P2000 wins everywhere the data touches. Its 227% OpenCL lead and 329.7% Vulkan lead cover compute and graphics workloads. The 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS makes it the clear choice for simulation, rendering, and GPU-accelerated analysis. The 140.2 GB/s bandwidth and 5 GB capacity support larger datasets and higher-resolution textures. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it suitable for multi-display professional setups, while the K3100M's output capability is tied to whatever portable device it is installed in.

The K3100M's only practical advantages come from its form factor and legacy positioning. As an MXM-B (3.0) module, it can drop into older mobile workstations that lack PCIe slot availability. Its 256-bit bus, while paired with slower memory, does offer a wider interface for certain bandwidth-sensitive legacy workloads, though the effective 102.4 GB/s still trails the P2000. The K3100M also has a Metal benchmark score of 3823, which is not available for the P2000, so in macOS-specific Metal environments, it may be the only one of the two that works at all.

For users locked into a Kepler-era mobile workstation, the K3100M is the pragmatic pick because it fits the hardware. For everyone else, the P2000 is the superior part on every measured axis: compute, graphics, API support, memory throughput, and display connectivity. The 28 nm versus 16 nm process gap and the two-generation architecture leap make the result unsurprising, but the magnitude of the difference, especially the 329.7% Vulkan gap, is striking. The database makes the verdict clear: the P2000 is the modern choice, and the K3100M is a legacy part best left to aging systems.