NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data from the database paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M in every recorded test. This is a clean sweep, with the K4000 taking all three head-to-head victories. The margins, however, vary significantly depending on the workload.

The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the K4000 scores 6,964 points against the K3100M's 5,484. That translates to a 27% advantage for the desktop card. This is a substantial lead and suggests the K4000 has a notable edge in compute tasks that leverage the Vulkan API.

The OpenCL results also favor the K4000, though by a smaller margin. The K4000 records 6,816 points, while the K3100M manages 6,154. This 10.8% difference shows the K4000 retains its lead in this API as well, but the performance gap is not as dramatic as in Vulkan.

The closest contest occurs in the Geekbench Metal test. The K4000 scores 4,166, and the K3100M is not far behind with 3,823. The 9% delta in favor of the K4000 is the narrowest of the three benchmarks. While the K4000 still wins, this result indicates that the mobile part is relatively more competitive in this specific workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the K4000 sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,982. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (average score 5,986, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD FirePro W4100 (average score 5,987, also a 0.1% difference). This places the K4000 in a tightly contested performance tier.

The K3100M, meanwhile, is positioned in the 30th percentile, with a lower average benchmark score of 5,154. Its closest competitors include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (average score 5,161, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (average score 5,211, a 1.1% difference). The data shows the K3100M is competitive within its own segment, but that segment sits a step below the K4000's.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the faster GPU. It wins every head-to-head test, and its average benchmark score of 5,982 is significantly higher than the K3100M's 5,154. For any workload that depends on raw compute performance, the data points firmly to the K4000.

The K3100M's lower scores, particularly the 27% deficit in Vulkan, highlight a meaningful performance gap. Users prioritizing maximum throughput in graphics or compute tasks should look to the K4000. Its consistent lead across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan means it is the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU computing.

However, the K3100M's role is different. The database lists its slot width as "MXM Module" and its power connectors as "None," indicating it is designed for mobile workstations. The K4000, by contrast, is a single-slot desktop card with a 1x 6-pin power connector. The K3100M is a capable part for a laptop environment, but the performance data shows it cannot match the desktop K4000.

The choice ultimately comes down to the platform. If the requirement is a desktop workstation, the K4000 offers superior performance in every measured category. If the requirement is a mobile workstation, the K3100M is the only option that fits the form factor, and its performance is respectable within the mobile segment. For pure speed, the K4000 is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, but they are not identical underneath. The K4000 uses the GK106 chip, while the K3100M is powered by the GK104 chip. This difference in the physical die leads to several notable specification variations.

The GK104 chip in the K3100M is the larger of the two. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The K4000's GK106 chip is smaller, packing 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die. This makes the K3100M's chip more complex in terms of raw transistor count, yet the K4000 still delivers higher benchmark scores.

The transistor density also differs slightly. The K3100M's chip has a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², while the K4000's chip has 11.5M per mm². Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the density difference is a result of the chip designs themselves.

Despite having fewer transistors, the K4000 manages to achieve higher clock speeds and better performance. The K3100M's base clock is fixed at 706 MHz, with no boost clock variation. The K4000's clock data is not listed in the database, but its memory clock is significantly faster at 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) compared to the K3100M's 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

A key architectural difference lies in the memory subsystem. The K4000 uses a 192-bit bus, while the K3100M has a wider 256-bit bus. This wider bus on the K3100M should theoretically provide more bandwidth, but the K4000's much faster memory clock gives it a higher overall bandwidth figure: 134.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The K4000's memory speed advantage more than compensates for its narrower bus.

Both cards feature 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units. The ROP count differs, with the K4000 having 24 ROPs and the K3100M having 32 ROPs. This gives the K3100M a theoretical advantage in pixel processing, but the K4000's higher clocks result in a higher pixel rate: 12.96 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the K4000, at 51.84 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge in several key specification areas, beyond the core chip differences already discussed.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are clear differentiators. The K4000 comes with 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the K3100M has a larger 4 GB frame buffer. However, as noted, the K4000's memory is faster, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the K3100M's 102.4 GB/s. The K4000's memory operates at 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the K3100M's runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

The compute output also favors the K4000. It achieves 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K3100M reaches 1,084.4 GFLOPS. This is a meaningful difference in raw floating-point throughput, explaining the K4000's benchmark wins.

Power and form factor present a stark contrast. The K4000 is a desktop card with an 80 W TDP and a single-slot design, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector. The K3100M is a mobile module with a 75 W TDP, using an MXM-B (3.0) interface and requiring no external power connectors. The K4000 also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the K3100M has no such listing.

Physical dimensions are only listed for the K4000, which measures 241 mm in length (9.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The K3100M's dimensions are not specified in the database, consistent with its portable device application. The display outputs also differ, with the K4000 offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the K3100M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The bus interface reflects their respective markets. The K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, a standard desktop slot. The K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0), a module standard for laptops. Both support the same API levels: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The K4000 was released on February 28, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD. The K3100M came later, on July 22, 2013. Both are now end-of-life products, with the K4000 succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The K3100M follows the same generational path, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,982, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M's average of 5,154.

Q: By how much does the K4000 win in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The K4000 scores 6,964 points in the Vulkan test, while the K3100M scores 5,484. This gives the K4000 a 27% advantage.

Q: Does the K3100M have more memory than the K4000?

A: Yes, the K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the K4000 has 3 GB. However, the K4000 has a higher memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s compared to 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two cards?

A: The K4000 has a TDP of 80 W, and the K3100M has a TDP of 75 W. The K4000 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the K3100M has no power connectors.

Q: Are the two GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture. The K4000 uses the GK106 chip, while the K3100M uses the GK104 chip, which is larger with 3,540 million transistors compared to 2,540 million.

Q: Which card is better for a desktop workstation?

A: The K4000 is designed for desktop use with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and wins all three head-to-head benchmarks. It is the better choice for desktop performance based on the data.