NVIDIA Quadro K4100M vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single shared compute workload between these two workstation-oriented GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the NVIDIA T600 returns a score of 27,875, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M produces 9,149 points. This yields a delta of 67.2 percent in favor of the T600, meaning the newer Turing-based card delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The margin is decisive and reflects far more than a generational tick; it is a full architectural leap in parallel execution efficiency.

For context within the database, the T600’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 7,035, placing it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (average score 7,023, delta 0.2 percent), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (average score 6,975, delta 0.9 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (average score 6,946, delta 1.3 percent). The T600 also sits slightly below the GeForce GTX 970, which averages 7,157 and shows a delta of -1.7 percent. These figures indicate that while the T600 is not a high-end part by overall database ranking, it is firmly competitive with mid-range mobile and older desktop discrete solutions.

The Quadro K4100M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 7,906, which places it at the 41st percentile, slightly higher than the T600’s 39th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (average score 7,925, delta -0.2 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (average score 8,039, delta -1.7 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (average score 8,040, delta -1.7 percent). Interestingly, the K4100M’s aggregate average score is higher than the T600’s, despite losing the shared OpenCL test so heavily. This discrepancy arises because the K4100M’s average is computed from a smaller set of benchmarks: it has only two recorded scores (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), whereas the T600 has nine recorded tests, including several Passmark workloads where scores vary widely.

Specifically, the T600’s Passmark results show a split personality: it scores 6479 in the G3D test, 2402 in GPU compute, 756 in G2D, and much lower in older DirectX API tests (114 in DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 25 in DirectX 12). These low DirectX scores drag down its average, but they also reveal that the T600 is optimized for modern compute and graphics APIs rather than legacy rasterization paths. The K4100M’s two recorded scores, 9,149 in OpenCL and 6,662 in Metal, both fall into the same general performance band, suggesting a more consistent, if lower-peak, compute profile.

The head-to-head delta of -67.2 percent for the K4100M is the largest gap in any recorded shared test. No benchmark in the database shows the K4100M winning against the T600; the wins column is 0 for the K4100M and 1 for the T600. Every shared metric that exists points to the T600’s superiority in compute throughput, although the K4100M’s higher average score across its own test set indicates that it is not a universally slower part in every possible workload, only in the ones both were subjected to.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA T600 is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute. Its 27,875 score versus the K4100M’s 9,149 is not a marginal improvement; it is a 204 percent increase in raw compute score, and the delta percentage of -67.2 percent for the K4100M underscores how far behind the older card is in this specific test. Users running OpenCL-based applications, such as certain scientific simulations, video encoding pipelines, or general-purpose GPU compute tasks, will see substantially better performance with the T600.

The K4100M, however, is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score of 7,906 across its tests is higher than the T600’s 7,035 average, and its percentile rank of 41 is two points higher than the T600’s 39. This suggests that in the two workloads the K4100M was tested for (OpenCL and Metal), it performs more consistently and, in the case of Metal, may offer competitive or superior results relative to the T600, which has no recorded Metal score. For users specifically targeting Apple’s Metal API, the K4100M’s 6,662 Metal score is the only relevant data point, and the T600 offers no comparable measurement in the database.

The T600 also wins on efficiency: its 40 W TDP versus the K4100M’s 100 W means it delivers higher compute performance per watt, a critical factor for mobile workstations or compact desktop systems. The T600’s single-slot form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also make it far easier to integrate into modern systems than the K4100M’s MXM Module form factor, which is largely confined to older laptop chassis. The K4100M’s 100 W power draw and MXM-B (3.0) interface limit its practical applicability in current hardware.

For a database user deciding between these two, the T600 is the default recommendation for any modern compute task, especially those leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan (the T600 supports Vulkan 1.4, the K4100M only 1.2.175). The K4100M might be considered only in legacy systems where the MXM form factor is required and where Metal API support is a priority, but even then, its lower compute scores and older architecture make it a difficult sell unless the specific software stack is locked to Kepler-era drivers.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent vastly different design generations. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The K4100M is part of the Kepler architecture, specifically the Quadro Kepler-M generation, and was released in July 2013. Its predecessor was the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor was the Quadro Maxwell-M. The chip is now end-of-life.

The T600, in contrast, uses the TU117 chip, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a much higher transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². It belongs to the Turing architecture, in the Quadro Turing generation, and was released in April 2021. Its predecessor was Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The production status is also end-of-life, but the architecture is seven years newer.

Core configurations differ sharply. The K4100M packs 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The T600 has only 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, but it also has 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the T600 achieves higher compute throughput due to its higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. The K4100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, while the T600 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost clock of 1,335 MHz. That boost clock is nearly double the K4100M’s maximum, which explains how a smaller core can outcompute a larger one.

Memory subsystems also differ. The K4100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with a memory clock of 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) and a higher bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The T600 achieves 56 percent more memory bandwidth despite half the bus width, thanks to the faster GDDR6 memory.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the same story. The K4100M delivers 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s, while the T600 delivers 42.72 GPixel/s and 53.40 GTexel/s. The T600 has a significantly higher pixel fill rate, though the K4100M has a higher texture fill rate. Floating-point performance is comparable on paper: the K4100M offers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32, while the T600 offers 1.709 TFLOPS, a mere 5 percent difference. However, the T600 also supports FP16 at 3.418 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the K4100M does not. This FP16 capability is crucial for AI and machine learning workloads.

API support also favors the T600. Both support DirectX 12, but the K4100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) while the T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), enabling newer features like conservative rasterization. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the T600 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the K4100M’s Vulkan 1.2.175. The T600 also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K4100M’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher compute score in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149, a delta of 67.2 percent in favor of the T600.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, and the T600 has an average of 7,035. The K4100M ranks at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the T600 ranks at the 39th.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The K4100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus. The T600 has 160.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, which is 56 percent higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The T600 has a TDP of 40 W, while the K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, making the T600 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Does the T600 support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the T600 offers 3.418 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The K4100M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The T600 has a pixel rate of 42.72 GPixel/s, while the K4100M has 16.94 GPixel/s, so the T600 is about 2.5 times faster in this metric.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T600 wins decisively in any OpenCL compute workload, as evidenced by its 27,875 score versus the K4100M’s 9,149. This makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific number crunching, and any application that leverages OpenCL for acceleration. The T600 also wins on memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), pixel fill rate (42.72 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s), and FP32 compute (1.709 TFLOPS versus 1.627 TFLOPS). Its FP16 capability at 3.418 TFLOPS opens up workloads that the Kepler card simply cannot handle, such as certain machine learning inference tasks. The T600’s lower TDP of 40 W versus 100 W also makes it the only realistic choice for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has no recorded benchmark wins against the T600, but it does hold advantages in certain specifications. Its texture fill rate of 67.78 GTexel/s is higher than the T600’s 53.40 GTexel/s, which could matter for texture-heavy rendering workloads, though no shared benchmark confirms a real-world win. The K4100M also has a higher average benchmark score (7,906 versus 7,035) and a higher percentile rank (41 versus 39), indicating that its two recorded scores are more consistent. For users working with Apple’s Metal API, the K4100M’s 6,662 Metal score is the only data point available; the T600 has no recorded Metal performance, so the K4100M is the only choice for that specific API in this comparison. The K4100M’s MXM Module form factor and 256 bit memory bus also make it suitable for older, larger mobile workstations where the T600’s PCIe card design cannot physically fit.

In practical terms, the T600 is the better part for almost every compute scenario, with the sole exception of Metal-based workflows where the K4100M has a known score and the T600 has none. Even then, the T600’s superior OpenCL and Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.175) suggests it would likely outperform the K4100M in cross-platform compute, but the data does not confirm this for Metal. The database records one shared benchmark, and the T600 wins it by a wide margin; that is the most reliable signal for a user comparing these two end-of-life GPUs.