GPU Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M in adjacent performance percentiles, yet their benchmark results reveal a stark divide in raw compute capability. The GTX 970 holds a commanding lead in every shared test, while the Quadro K4100M’s profile is defined by its mobile form factor and different architectural priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison contains only two common benchmark results, and the GTX 970 dominates both. In the Geekbench Metal test, the GTX 970 scores 13,595 against the Quadro K4100M’s 6,662, a delta of 104.1%. This means the GTX 970 more than doubles the Quadro’s Metal performance. The gap widens further in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 970 posts 29,982 versus 9,149 for the Quadro K4100M, a delta of 227.7%. In that test, the GTX 970 delivers over three times the compute throughput.

These deltas are not marginal. A 104.1% advantage in Metal and a 227.7% advantage in OpenCL indicate that the GTX 970 is in a different performance class for these workloads, despite the two cards sitting within two percentile points of each other in the overall GPU ranking. The GTX 970’s average benchmark score is 7,157, while the Quadro K4100M averages 7,906, which actually puts the Quadro slightly ahead in aggregate. This paradox, losing both head-to-head tests but having a higher average score, is explained by the different benchmark suites each card was evaluated with. The GTX 970 has eleven recorded benchmarks, while the Quadro K4100M has only two, and those two happen to be the ones where the GTX 970 excels most.

The win count reflects this lopsided result: the GTX 970 wins 2 head-to-head tests, the Quadro K4100M wins 0. There is no test in the shared set where the Quadro comes out ahead. The closest the Quadro gets is in Metal, where it still trails by more than double. The OpenCL result is even more decisive, with the GTX 970 leading by over 20,000 points.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins outright in every head-to-head benchmark, so its strengths are clear. For Metal and OpenCL compute workloads, the GTX 970 is the superior choice by a wide margin. The architecture’s higher clock speeds and larger shading unit count translate directly into higher raw throughput. The GTX 970’s FP32 performance of 3.920 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro K4100M’s 1.627 TFLOPS, which explains the OpenCL result. Its texture rate of 122.5 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 65.97 GPixel/s also dwarf the Quadro’s 67.78 GTexel/s and 16.94 GPixel/s.

The Quadro K4100M, however, wins in the context of its intended use case: mobile workstations. It is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a TDP of 100 W, compared to the GTX 970’s dual-slot design, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and 148 W TDP. The Quadro is designed to fit into a laptop chassis, where the GTX 970’s 267 mm length and 40 mm width would be impossible. The Quadro also has a higher percentile rank (41st) than the GTX 970 (39th), and a higher average benchmark score (7,906 vs. 7,157). In the aggregate, the Quadro’s limited benchmark set scores better than the GTX 970’s broader set, suggesting that in the specific tests where the Quadro was measured, it performs relatively well.

For users who need a discrete GPU in a portable form factor, the Quadro K4100M is the only option of the two. For anyone who can accommodate a desktop card, the GTX 970 wins on every measured performance metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 970 is built on Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip, while the Quadro K4100M uses Kepler with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially. The GTX 970 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Quadro K4100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M per mm². The GTX 970’s larger die and higher transistor count enable its greater compute resources.

Core configuration is a major differentiator. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 56 ROPs. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 970 leads in every category, with 44% more shading units and 75% more ROPs. Clock speeds amplify this gap. The GTX 970 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GTX 970’s boost clock is 66% higher than the Quadro’s fixed clock.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and bus width, both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, but the effective speeds diverge. The GTX 970’s memory operates at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M’s memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), producing only 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 970 offers more than double the memory bandwidth. API support also differs: the GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The physical designs are entirely different. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU and two 6-pin connectors. The Quadro K4100M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with no power connectors and no fixed dimensions, designed for portable devices with display outputs dependent on the host system.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for raw performance: the GTX 970 is the superior GPU in every head-to-head benchmark. Its 227.7% lead in OpenCL and 104.1% lead in Metal are decisive. Users who need maximum compute throughput, whether for rendering, simulation, or general GPU compute, should choose the GTX 970. Its higher clock speeds, more shading units, larger ROP count, and double the memory bandwidth make it the faster card in any application that can use those resources.

The Quadro K4100M, however, is the only choice for a mobile workstation. Its MXM form factor and 100 W TDP make it installable in laptops, something the GTX 970 cannot do. Its higher percentile rank (41 vs. 39) and higher average benchmark score (7,906 vs. 7,157) suggest that in its limited test set, it performs well relative to its peers. But those aggregate numbers do not translate into a win in any shared test with the GTX 970.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For a desktop system where space and power are not constraints, the GTX 970 is the obvious pick. For a portable workstation where the GPU must fit in an MXM slot, the Quadro K4100M is the only viable option of the two. The data does not support choosing the Quadro for performance reasons, only for form factor reasons.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970 scores 29,982 versus 9,149 for the Quadro K4100M, a 227.7% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 970’s memory runs at 7 Gbps effective versus 3.2 Gbps for the Quadro K4100M.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 970 has a TDP of 148 W, while the Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The GTX 970 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each card?

A: The GTX 970 boosts to 1178 MHz, while the Quadro K4100M is fixed at 706 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a higher average score of 7,906, compared to 7,157 for the GTX 970.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1050 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz / 7 Gbps effective | 800 MHz / 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 104 | 96 |

| ROPs | 56 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 65.97 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 122.5 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.920 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 148 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | N/A |

| Release Date | 2014-09-18 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 329 USD | 1,499 USD |