NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result heavily favors the older, professional-oriented card. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6,698 points. That is a 36.6% delta, a substantial gap that places the K4100M firmly ahead in raw compute workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the K4100M’s average benchmark score is 7,906, which places it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7,925, only 0.2% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039, 1.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040, 1.7% ahead). The GT 1010, by contrast, has an average score of 6,698 and sits at the 38th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, 1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612, 1.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581, 1.8% behind).

The data suggests the K4100M, despite being from an older generation, holds a clear performance advantage in the single measurable test. The 36.6% lead in OpenCL is not a marginal difference; it is a decisive margin that carries implications for any compute-oriented task. The GT 1010, meanwhile, finds itself in a cluster of low-end mobile and entry-level desktop parts, trading blows with AMD’s older R7 and HD 7000 series.

What is striking is the evolutionary gap. The K4100M is a 2013 product, while the GT 1010 is a 2021 product. Yet the older card wins the only head-to-head test by a wide margin. This suggests that the K4100M’s larger memory bus, higher memory bandwidth, and significantly more shading units outweigh the GT 1010’s architectural advances in this particular workload.

Where Each One Wins

The K4100M wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. It has 1 win in the head-to-head table, while the GT 1010 has 0. This is a clean sweep, but the nuance lies in what each card is designed to do.

The K4100M is a mobile workstation GPU. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, positions it for professional tasks like CAD, simulation, and GPU-accelerated rendering. The GT 1010, with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivers only 48.06 GB/s, which is less than half the bandwidth. For memory-intensive workloads, the K4100M is the clear choice.

The GT 1010, however, is a low-power desktop card with a 30 W TDP. Its 1,468 MHz boost clock is more than double the K4100M’s 706 MHz, and it uses the newer Pascal architecture with a 14 nm process node. In tasks that are latency-bound or benefit from higher clock speeds, the GT 1010 may feel more responsive, but the benchmark data does not support a win. The OpenCL score is the only measurement, and it goes to the K4100M.

For users who prioritize power efficiency, the GT 1010 is the better choice. It draws 30 W versus the K4100M’s 100 W, and it is a single-slot card designed for simple desktop installations. The K4100M, by contrast, is an MXM module, meaning it is intended for laptop or mobile workstation integration, not for a standard desktop PCIe slot.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different eras of NVIDIA design. The K4100M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It houses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip, based on Pascal, built by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, yielding a much higher density of 24.3 million per mm².

The core configuration differs sharply. The K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 1010 has only 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This explains the K4100M’s compute advantage: it has 4.5 times the shading units and 6 times the TMUs. The pixel rate tells the same story: 16.94 GPixel/s for the K4100M versus 11.74 GPixel/s for the GT 1010. Texture rate is even more lopsided: 67.78 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.627 TFLOPS for the K4100M, more than double the GT 1010’s 751.6 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major split. The K4100M uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1010 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 48.06 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for the K4100M versus 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the GT 1010. The GT 1010’s memory is faster per pin, but the K4100M’s wider bus wins overall.

API support favors the newer card. The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GT 1010 also has a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0), which is a laptop-specific connector.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has an average score of 6,698. The K4100M leads by roughly 18%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K4100M in the OpenCL test?

A: The K4100M scores 9,149 versus the GT 1010’s 6,698, a 36.6% difference in favor of the K4100M.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K4100M has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the GT 1010 has 48.06 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. The K4100M has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The GT 1010 has a 30 W TDP, while the K4100M has a 100 W TDP. The GT 1010 uses significantly less power.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The K4100M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, with an average score of 7,925, just 0.2% higher. The GT 1010’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M370, with an average score of 6,764, 1% higher.

Q: Which card supports the newer DirectX version?

A: The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Quadro K4100M is the faster GPU in raw compute, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 36.6%. Its higher average score, larger memory configuration, and superior shading unit count make it the stronger choice for any workload that depends on parallel processing or memory throughput.

However, the GT 1010 is not without its merits. It is a far more efficient card, drawing only 30 W compared to 100 W. It is also a newer design, using the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process, which enables higher clock speeds (1,468 MHz boost versus 706 MHz). For users who need a simple, low-power desktop GPU for basic display output or light tasks, the GT 1010 is the logical pick.

The K4100M, being an MXM module, is not a drop-in replacement for a desktop PCIe card. It is designed for mobile workstations, and its slot width and bus interface reflect that. The GT 1010, with its PCIe 3.0 x4 interface and single-slot design, is built for standard desktops.

The choice depends on the use case. For professional compute, rendering, or any memory-heavy task, the K4100M’s benchmark results justify its inclusion. For a low-power desktop system where the GPU is not the bottleneck, the GT 1010 is the more practical option. The data does not support the GT 1010 in a performance comparison, but it wins on efficiency and modernity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GP108 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 1,228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1,468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective | 1,502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,152 | 256 |

| TMUs | 96 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.94 GPixel/s | 11.74 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.78 GTexel/s | 23.49 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.627 TFLOPS | 751.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2021-01-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 20 |

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

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | Not available |