NVIDIA Quadro K4100M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one directly comparable benchmark between the two mobile workstations: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M's 9,149 points. The delta of -60.1% from the K4100M's perspective means the M5000M outperforms the older part by roughly 150% in raw compute throughput. This is a decisive victory for the Maxwell-generation card, and it aligns with the architectural leap between the two products.

The K4100M has no winning benchmark in the head-to-head comparison; the database records zero wins for the K4100M and one for the M5000M. However, the K4100M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 6,662, a test the M5000M lacks, so direct comparison there is impossible. The M5000M's OpenCL result is its strongest single metric, and it also posts substantial scores in Vulkan (24,875) and Passmark G3D (7,062), though those lack a K4100M counterpart in the database.

Looking at average scores, a curious inversion appears. The K4100M's average benchmark score is 7,906, while the M5000M's is 6,481. This is because the K4100M only has two benchmarks recorded, both compute-oriented, whereas the M5000M has nine, including several older DirectX tests where it scores very low (e.g., 29 in Passmark DirectX 12, 35 in DirectX 10). The M5000M's compute and modern-API scores are far higher, but its legacy API scores drag the average down. Thus, the simple average does not reflect the M5000M's clear superiority in the one directly comparable test.

Percentile rankings also tell a nuanced story. The K4100M sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the M5000M is at the 37th percentile. That appears to contradict the head-to-head result, but again, the K4100M's percentile is based on a smaller, compute-heavy benchmark set, while the M5000M's includes many legacy tests. The nearest rivals for each card confirm this: the K4100M's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 460 (average 7,925, delta -0.2%), while the M5000M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (average 6,476, delta 0.1%). The M5000M's rival set includes the GeForce GT 555M and GTX 670M, which are older midrange parts, indicating that its average is dragged down by the low legacy scores.

In summary, the only true head-to-head data point, OpenCL, shows the M5000M is dramatically faster. That is the headline result. The other numbers matter for context, but they do not change the verdict: the M5000M is the stronger compute part by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, and the data shows a clear generational shift. The K4100M is built on Kepler (chip GK104), while the M5000M uses Maxwell 2.0 (chip GM204). Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the K4100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the M5000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Transistor density increases from 12.0 million per mm² on the K4100M to 13.1 million per mm² on the M5000M.

Core configuration diverges as well. The M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M5000M enjoys a 33% advantage in shading units and a 100% advantage in ROPs, which directly explains its higher pixel rate: 67.26 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the M5000M at 100.9 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds further separate the pair. The K4100M runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost, whereas the M5000M has a 962 MHz base and a 1,051 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ similarly: the K4100M uses 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the M5000M runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the M5000M's higher clock yields 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 102.4 GB/s for the K4100M. Memory capacity also doubles: 8 GB on the M5000M versus 4 GB on the K4100M.

Compute throughput (FP32) shows the largest gap. The M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS, almost exactly double the K4100M's 1.627 TFLOPS. That doubling aligns with the 33% more shading units and the higher clock speed. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those features. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. OpenGL is identical at 4.6.

Both cards share the same 100 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The production status for both is end-of-life. Release dates differ by about two years: the K4100M launched on July 22, 2013, and the M5000M on August 17, 2015. The K4100M's predecessor was Quadro Fermi-M and its successor was Quadro Maxwell-M; the M5000M's predecessor was Quadro Kepler-M and its successor was Quadro Pascal-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5, double the K4100M's 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the M5000M's higher memory clock (1,253 MHz versus 800 MHz) gives it 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark difference between the two?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M scores 22,920 versus the K4100M's 9,149, a delta of -60.1% from the K4100M's perspective. This is the only directly comparable test in the database.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support also differs: 1.4 on the M5000M versus 1.2.175 on the K4100M. OpenGL is the same at 4.6.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The M5000M is far ahead. Its pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s for the K4100M, and its texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. The M5000M has 64 ROPs and 96 TMUs, while the K4100M has 32 ROPs and 96 TMUs.

Q: Are the two cards the same power draw?

A: Yes, both are rated at 100 W TDP, use MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and use the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The M5000M achieves its higher performance within the same power envelope.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, while the M5000M's is 6,481. However, the M5000M's average includes many low legacy DirectX scores (e.g., 29 in DirectX 12), while the K4100M's average is based only on two compute scores. The single head-to-head OpenCL test strongly favors the M5000M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute and modern graphics workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M. Its OpenCL score of 22,920 versus the K4100M's 9,149 is a 60% gap, and that is not a minor edge. Doubled FP32 throughput (3.229 TFLOPS versus 1.627 TFLOPS), doubled memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB), higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), and nearly four times the pixel rate (67.26 versus 16.94 GPixel/s) all favor the M5000M. It also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4.

The K4100M's only advantages are its higher percentile rank (41st versus 37th) and a higher average benchmark score (7,906 versus 6,481), but both are artifacts of the benchmark mix. The K4100M has just two compute benchmarks, while the M5000M has nine, including several very low legacy DirectX scores. In any modern compute test, the M5000M wins decisively.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, the M5000M is the superior choice for OpenCL compute, modern API support, and memory-heavy tasks. The K4100M is not competitive in the one test where both appear. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the K4100M outperforms the M5000M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification except the process node, memory type, bus width, TDP, slot width, power connectors, bus interface, display outputs, and OpenGL version. The M5000M has a larger chip (GM204, 398 mm²) versus the K4100M's GK104 (294 mm²), more transistors (5,200 million versus 3,540 million), and higher density (13.1M/mm² versus 12.0M/mm²). Shading units jump from 1,152 to 1,536, ROPs double from 32 to 64, and TMUs stay at 96. Clocks: the M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost, while the K4100M sits at 706 MHz for both. Memory: 8 GB versus 4 GB, 1,253 MHz versus 800 MHz, 160.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Pixel rate: 67.26 versus 16.94 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 100.9 versus 67.78 GTexel/s. FP32: 3.229 versus 1.627 TFLOPS. API: DirectX 12_1 versus 11_0, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. Release dates: 2015-08-17 versus 2013-07-22. The K4100M has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD; the M5000M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in every directly comparable metric. It is the clear choice for OpenCL compute, where it scores 22,920 against the K4100M's 9,149. It also wins on raw processing power: 3.229 TFLOPS FP32, 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate, and 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate. The 8 GB memory plus 160.4 GB/s bandwidth makes it better suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its Vulkan score of 24,875 and Passmark G3D score of 7,062 further indicate strong modern graphics performance. The M5000M supports DirectX 12_1, so it can handle newer game and application features that the K4100M (DirectX 11_0) cannot.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has no winning benchmark in the head-to-head data. Its only notable metrics are the Geekbench Metal score of 6,662 and an average score of 7,906, which is higher than the M5000M's 6,481, but that average is computed from a different test set. The K4100M's percentile rank (41st) is also higher than the M5000M's (37th), but again, that ranking comes from different benchmark compositions. In the one test that directly compares both, the K4100M loses by 60%. Therefore, the K4100M cannot be recommended over the M5000M for any workload based on the recorded data. The M5000M is the only logical pick for compute-heavy tasks, modern API support, and memory-intensive workflows.