GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M represent two distinct generations of professional mobile graphics, separated by the architectural leap from Kepler to Pascal. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gulf between the two, with the P5000 dominating in every measurable compute scenario. The P5000 achieves an average benchmark score of 8039, while the K4100M trails with an average of 7906. This places both cards at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, indicating that while their aggregate scores are comparable, the nature of their performance is vastly different, with the P5000’s lead concentrated in modern, compute-heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are stark. The Quadro P5000 scores 52509, while the Quadro K4100M manages only 9149. This represents a delta of 473.9% in favor of the P5000. This is not a marginal generational improvement; it is a fundamental shift in compute capability. The P5000 delivers over five times the raw OpenCL throughput of the older K4100M, a difference that will be immediately apparent in any GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, or data-processing task.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the P5000 shows its strength across a wide range of tests. In Passmark’s G3D suite, the P5000 scores 12634, while the K4100M has no comparable score listed. The P5000 also posts a Passmark G2D score of 674, a DirectX 10 score of 77, a DirectX 11 score of 102, a DirectX 12 score of 44, and a DirectX 9 score of 170. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 6508. These figures paint a picture of a card that is not only fast in modern APIs but also retains strong performance in legacy DirectX 9 and 10 workloads, which are still common in professional CAD and simulation software.

The K4100M’s only other listed benchmark is a Geekbench Metal score of 6662, which has no direct P5000 counterpart in the data. However, given the P5000’s 473.9% lead in OpenCL, it is reasonable to infer that the P5000 would hold a similar advantage in Metal compute on compatible platforms. The K4100M’s nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 with an average score of 7925, which is a -0.2% delta from the K4100M. This places the K4100M’s performance in the same bracket as a desktop GPU from 2010, highlighting its age. In contrast, the P5000’s nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 880M (8040, 0% delta) and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053, -0.2% delta), showing that the P5000’s average score is statistically tied with those older enthusiast-class parts, despite being a professional card.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 is the clear winner in every category where data is available. Its single head-to-head win is in Geekbench OpenCL, but its comprehensive Passmark suite results indicate wins across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as in 2D and compute workloads. For professionals using GPU compute for tasks like finite element analysis, fluid dynamics, or machine learning inference, the P5000’s 473.9% lead in OpenCL is the deciding factor. The P5000 is also the better choice for any application that relies on modern graphics APIs, given its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and higher scores in that test.

The Quadro K4100M, in contrast, has no wins in the provided data. Its only advantage is its form factor and power profile, which are covered in the Architecture Differences section. In terms of raw performance, the K4100M is outclassed by the P5000 in every single benchmark. The K4100M’s Geekbench Metal score of 6662 is its only unique data point, but this does not constitute a win; it simply indicates that the card is capable of running Metal compute, which is a feature the P5000 does not list. For a user with a legacy application that only supports Kepler-era GPUs or that requires a specific MXM form factor, the K4100M might be the only option, but that is a hardware constraint, not a performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the P5000 and K4100M is immense. The P5000 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture using the GP104 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M / mm². The K4100M, in contrast, uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process. It has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M / mm². This means the P5000 packs more than twice the transistors into a slightly larger die, thanks to the more advanced manufacturing node.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The P5000 features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This 2.2x advantage in shading units and 2x advantage in TMUs and ROPs explains the P5000’s massive performance lead. The clock speeds also favor the P5000, which runs at a base of 1607 MHz and a boost of 1733 MHz, versus the K4100M’s static 706 MHz. Memory bandwidth is another major divider: the P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s, while the K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s. This 2.8x bandwidth advantage is critical for large texture sets and data-heavy compute tasks.

The compute rates reflect these differences. The P5000 achieves 110.9 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 277.3 GTexel/s texture fill rate, while the K4100M manages only 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is similarly lopsided: the P5000 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K4100M provides 1.627 TFLOPS. The P5000 also supports FP16 at 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature the K4100M lacks entirely. Power consumption tells a different story, with the P5000 rated at 180 W TDP versus 100 W for the K4100M, but the P5000’s performance per watt is still vastly superior given its 5.4x FP32 advantage.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 in OpenCL compute compared to the Quadro K4100M?

A: The P5000 scores 52509 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K4100M scores 9149, resulting in a 473.9% advantage for the P5000.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of the two cards?

A: The P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory with a 256-bit bus, while the K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. Their bandwidths are 288.5 GB/s and 102.4 GB/s, respectively.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The P5000 has a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the K4100M’s 16.94 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the P5000 supports feature level 12_1, while the K4100M supports feature level 11_0.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The P5000 is built on a 16 nm process, while the K4100M uses a 28 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The P5000 has 2560 shading units, compared to the K4100M’s 1152 shading units.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P5000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

|:---------------|:---------------------|:----------------------|

| Chip | GP104 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1607 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1733 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.5 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 160 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 110.9 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 277.3 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.873 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64) | None |

| TDP | 180 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 1,499 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Quadro Maxwell-M |