NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M records an average benchmark score of 5154, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 records 4684. The K3100M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and the P400 sits at the 27th percentile.

Q: How large is the gap between the two in OpenCL performance?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the K3100M scores 6154 against the P400's 4249, a delta of 44.8% in favor of the K3100M. That is the largest single-test difference recorded between these two cards.

Q: Does the P400 win any of the shared benchmark tests?

A: No. The database shows two head-to-head tests (geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan), and the P400 loses both. The K3100M wins 2 tests, the P400 wins 0.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference between the two cards?

A: The K3100M scores 5484 in geekbench_vulkan, while the P400 scores 5119. The K3100M leads by 7.1% in that test.

Q: How do the two cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The K3100M's average score of 5154 is within 1.8% of its closest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, -0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -1.6%). The P400's average of 4684 is within 1.2% of rivals such as the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0.6%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 1.2%).

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth in the specifications?

A: The K3100M has a 256-bit memory bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the P400 has a 64-bit bus and 32.06 GB/s. The K3100M's bandwidth is more than three times higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The K3100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The P400 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink allows the P400 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The K3100M holds 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0M per mm².

The compute resources differ sharply. The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite the lower counts, the P400 runs at much higher clocks: 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost, versus 706 MHz base and boost on the K3100M. The K3100M still produces higher raw throughput in several metrics, including 1,084.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 641.0 GFLOPS on the P400, and 45.18 GTexel/s texture rate versus 20.03 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also differs. The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory running at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), and bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s. The P400's pixel rate is higher at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s on the K3100M, which is notable given the P400's smaller ROP count.

The feature sets reflect their generations. The K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P400 also lists FP16 throughput at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), while the K3100M has no recorded FP16 value. The bus interfaces differ as well: the K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0) and is an MXM module, while the P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and is a single-slot card with dimensions of 150 mm (5.9 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the K3100M wins both. The OpenCL test shows the largest margin: the K3100M scores 6154, the P400 scores 4249, and the delta is 44.8% in favor of the K3100M. This is a substantial performance gap, more than two-fifths ahead in that workload. The K3100M's higher shading unit count (768 versus 256) and wider memory bus (256-bit versus 64-bit) likely contribute to this result, as OpenCL compute workloads often scale with both shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan test is much closer. The K3100M scores 5484, the P400 scores 5119, and the delta is 7.1%. While the K3100M still wins, the margin is small enough that the P400's higher clocks and newer architecture nearly close the gap in this API. The P400's boost clock of 1252 MHz is 546 MHz higher than the K3100M's 706 MHz, and the Pascal architecture's efficiency improvements help it compete despite having only one-third the shading units.

The overall win count stands at 2 for the K3100M and 0 for the P400. The average benchmark scores follow the same direction: 5154 for the K3100M versus 4684 for the P400, a difference of 470 points. The K3100M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, -0.1%) and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1.1%), placing it in a tight cluster around the 5100-5200 range. The P400's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0.6%) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, 0.6%), placing it in the 4600-4700 range.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The process node moves from 28 nm on the K3100M to 14 nm on the P400, and the foundry changes from TSMC to Samsung. Transistor count is similar (3,540 million versus 3,300 million), but die size drops from 294 mm² to 132 mm², and density rises from 12.0M/mm² to 25.0M/mm².

Clock speeds are much higher on the P400: base 1228 MHz versus 706 MHz, boost 1252 MHz versus 706 MHz. Memory clock also rises from 800 MHz to 1002 MHz, with effective rates of 3.2 Gbps versus 4 Gbps. Memory size drops from 4 GB to 2 GB, bus width drops from 256-bit to 64-bit, and bandwidth drops from 102.4 GB/s to 32.06 GB/s.

Compute unit counts all favor the K3100M: shading units 768 versus 256, TMUs 64 versus 16, ROPs 32 versus 16. FP32 throughput is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. The pixel rate, however, favors the P400 at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s.

Power and form factor also differ. The K3100M has a TDP of 75 W, while the P400 has a TDP of 30 W. The K3100M is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the P400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The bus interface changes from MXM-B (3.0) to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent for the K3100M, while the P400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The API support differs in DirectX version (11_0 versus 12_1) and Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.4). Release dates are July 2013 for the K3100M and February 2017 for the P400. The K3100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the P400's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and successor is Quadro Volta.

Where Each One Wins

The K3100M wins in compute-heavy workloads that stress raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score of 6154 is 44.8% ahead of the P400, and its FP32 throughput of 1,084.4 GFLOPS is nearly double. The 256-bit memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive advantage in data-intensive tasks. The K3100M also wins in Vulkan, though by a smaller 7.1% margin, suggesting it remains competitive in modern API workloads despite being from an older architecture.

The P400 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its TDP of 30 W is less than half the K3100M's 75 W, and it comes in a single-slot PCIe card with a standard form factor and 150 mm length. The P400's higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, despite fewer ROPs, indicates better fill-rate efficiency per clock. The newer Pascal architecture also brings a higher Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175) and DirectX 12_1 support, which may matter for software compatibility in newer applications.

For users constrained by power budgets or chassis space, the P400 is the only option that fits a standard PCIe slot with minimal power draw. For users who need maximum compute performance in a mobile MXM form factor, the K3100M delivers the higher scores in both recorded benchmarks. The K3100M's 4 GB memory capacity also doubles the P400's 2 GB, which can matter for larger datasets that fit within VRAM.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M as the faster card. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 44.8% lead in OpenCL and a 7.1% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 5154 places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the P400's 4684 sits at the 27th percentile. The K3100M's higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and greater memory capacity give it a structural advantage that the P400's higher clocks and newer architecture cannot fully overcome.

The P400 is not without merits. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it far easier to install in a desktop workstation. Its memory runs at a higher effective speed (4 Gbps versus 3.2 Gbps), and its pixel rate is higher. But in the recorded performance tests, it trails the K3100M in every category.

The choice depends on the use case. If the priority is maximum compute performance from the database results, the K3100M is the stronger pick. If the priority is a low-power, low-profile card that fits a standard PCIe slot and supports newer API versions, the P400 is the more practical option. For workloads that rely on OpenCL throughput, the K3100M's 44.8% advantage is decisive. For Vulkan-based applications, the gap narrows to 7.1%, but the K3100M still leads. The data does not support selecting the P400 on performance grounds alone.