NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the decisive winner for anyone who needs modern compute workloads, API support, and sustained performance in a low-power desktop form factor. The RTX A400 leads the Quadro K3100M by 271.2% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 305.5% in Geekbench Vulkan, meaning it is not just faster, it is in a different performance class entirely.

The Quadro K3100M is an end-of-life mobile module from 2013. It has no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no Vulkan score above the RTX A400's baseline. Its only redeeming measurement in the database is a Geekbench Metal score of 3823, which the RTX A400 does not have. If your application targets Apple's Metal API on a portable workstation, the K3100M has that one niche. Otherwise, the RTX A400 is the correct choice for current workstation use, particularly for CUDA-based tasks, OpenCL workloads, and Vulkan rendering.

The RTX A400 also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 35th percentile of all GPUs versus the K3100M's 30th. Its average benchmark score is 6078, while the K3100M averages 5154. The nearest rivals for the RTX A400 (NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077, Quadro P2000 at 6049, Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117, AMD Radeon 760M at 6019) all sit within a 1% band, confirming that the A400 is a solid mid-pack performer for its class. The K3100M's nearest rivals (AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, Quadro 4000M at 5211, GeForce GTX 760M at 5236, AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063) show it is clustered among older mobile parts.

Pick the RTX A400 if you need a modern, active-production GPU with PCIe 4.0, four display outputs, and a 50 W TDP. Pick the K3100M only if you are maintaining legacy portable hardware that specifically requires an MXM module and you cannot replace the system.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. It is built on the Ampere architecture, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. The K3100M uses the GK104 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. It belongs to the Kepler architecture in the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation.

The process gap is enormous: 8 nm versus 28 nm. That alone explains the A400's superior power efficiency and higher clock speeds. The A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, while the K3100M runs at a flat 706 MHz with no boost. Memory clocks differ too: the A400 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) with GDDR6, while the K3100M runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) with GDDR5.

Both cards have 768 shading units, but the A400's are fed by a modern architecture with 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The K3100M has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, which gives it a higher texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s) and a higher pixel rate? No, the A400's pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s versus the K3100M's 11.30 GPixel/s. The A400 wins pixel throughput despite fewer ROPs because of its much higher clock speed.

The A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Kepler chip. The K3100M has no RT or tensor core entries in the database. The A400's FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, while the K3100M is at 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The A400 also supports FP16 at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K3100M has no listed FP16 capability.

The API support gap is significant. The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The A400's newer feature set enables the benchmark deltas seen in Vulkan and OpenCL.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmark tests between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX A400 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A400 scores 22844 against the K3100M's 6154. That is a 271.2% advantage. OpenCL is a common compute workload for rendering, physics simulation, and data processing. A 3.7x improvement in raw compute means tasks that took hours on the K3100M finish in a fraction of the time on the A400. The cause is clear: the A400's FP32 rate is 2.706 TFLOPS versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The K3100M actually has slightly higher memory bandwidth, but the A400's compute throughput and clock advantage overwhelm that.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A400 scores 22237 against the K3100M's 5484, a 305.5% lead. Vulkan is the modern low-overhead graphics API, and the A400's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the K3100M's 1.2.175 explains part of the gap. The A400 also has a much higher pixel rate (28.19 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s), which directly benefits rasterization-heavy workloads.

The K3100M has one benchmark the A400 does not: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 3823. There is no Metal score listed for the A400, so no direct comparison is possible. If Metal is your target API, the K3100M at least has recorded data, but the score is low in absolute terms. The A400's absence from Metal testing suggests the database did not run that workload on it, so users of Apple's ecosystem should verify compatibility separately.

The win count is 2 for the A400, 0 for the K3100M. The margin of victory is not close in either test.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX A400 faster than the Quadro K3100M in every shared benchmark?

A: Yes. The A400 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 271.2% and Geekbench Vulkan by 305.5%. There are no shared tests where the K3100M wins.

Q: Does the K3100M have any advantage in memory bandwidth or texture rate?

A: It has a small memory bandwidth edge (102.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) and a texture rate edge (45.18 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s), but the A400's far higher clock speeds and pixel rate (28.19 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s) make those advantages irrelevant in practice.

Q: Which card has ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX A400. It has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The K3100M has none.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The A400 averages 6078, while the K3100M averages 5154. The A400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, the K3100M at the 30th.

Q: Can the K3100M be used in a desktop tower?

A: The K3100M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The A400 is a single-slot PCIe 4.0 x8 card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The form factors are not interchangeable.

Q: Which card has a longer production lifespan?

A: The A400 is listed as Active, released in April 2024. The K3100M is End-of-life, released in July 2013. The A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. The K3100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in every shared benchmark category. Its compute advantage is massive: 271.2% in OpenCL and 305.5% in Vulkan. This makes it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated compute, modern DirectX 12 Ultimate games, Vulkan-based renderers, and any workload that can use tensor cores for AI inference or ray tracing cores for real-time ray-traced visuals. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design with four mini-DisplayPort outputs suit a desktop workstation that needs multiple high-resolution monitors. The A400's 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus delivers 96.00 GB/s, which is sufficient for its performance class.

The K3100M's only recorded win is the Geekbench Metal score of 3823, a test absent from the A400's database. For a legacy portable workstation running macOS-oriented Metal workloads, the K3100M has at least some recorded capability. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus gives 102.4 GB/s, and its 64 TMUs provide a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s, which is competitive with the A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. Its MXM form factor means it can slot into older mobile workstations that cannot accept a PCIe card. If you are maintaining a 2013-era portable system and cannot upgrade the chassis, the K3100M remains a functional option for basic OpenGL 4.6 rendering and older DirectX 12 (11_0) titles.

The A400 is also the better choice for software longevity. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M is capped at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Modern game engines and rendering APIs increasingly target 12_2 features. The K3100M will be left behind as software moves forward.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A400 | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Kepler |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1762 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 24 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 28.19 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 42.29 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.706 TFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) | None listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None listed |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6078 | 5154 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 35 | 30 |