NVIDIA Quadro K4100M vs NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition records an average benchmark score of 9037, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 7906. This puts the TITAN V CEO Edition roughly 14.3% ahead in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition sits at the 45th percentile, while the Quadro K4100M sits at the 41st percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, though the TITAN V sits slightly higher.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 at 9022 average score, a delta of 0.2%. The Quadro K4100M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 at 7925 average score, a delta of -0.2%.

Q: Do the two cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The TITAN V CEO Edition supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition has 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, while the Quadro K4100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V CEO Edition is the clear winner in raw compute and memory throughput. Its FP32 performance of 14.90 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro K4100M's 1.627 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 9.2x. Memory bandwidth is similarly lopsided: 868.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, an 8.5x advantage. The TITAN V also has far more shading units (5120 vs 1152), texture mapping units (320 vs 96), and render output units (128 vs 32). Pixel rate is 186.2 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 465.6 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. For any workload that scales with shader count, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth, the TITAN V is the decisive choice.

The Quadro K4100M wins in portability and power envelope. It is an MXM module with no external power connectors, drawing 100 W, whereas the TITAN V is a dual-slot card requiring a 600 W power supply and a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector. The K4100M's display outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile workstation design. The TITAN V is 267 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide; the K4100M has no listed dimensions, consistent with a compact MXM form factor. The Quadro also has a lower transistor density (12.0M / mm² vs 25.9M / mm²), indicating a less dense, older process.

In benchmark coverage, the two cards do not share any common tests. The TITAN V has PassMark G2D (1086) and G3D (16988) scores. The Quadro K4100M has Geekbench Metal (6662) and Geekbench OpenCL (9149) scores. The TITAN V's G3D score of 16988 is notably high, while the Quadro's OpenCL score of 9149 reflects solid compute for its class. The TITAN V's G2D score of 1086 is modest, indicating that 2D performance is not its primary strength.

Architecture Differences

The TITAN V CEO Edition uses the GV100 chip on the Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 640 tensor cores, which the Quadro K4100M lacks entirely. Tensor cores are specialized for matrix math, which accelerates deep learning and AI inference workloads. The TITAN V also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 29.80 TFLOPS half-precision compute, while the Quadro K4100M has no listed FP16 capability.

The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Kepler is a significantly older design, with no tensor cores and no FP16 support. The K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the TITAN V's 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The transistor density difference is stark: 25.9M / mm² for Volta versus 12.0M / mm² for Kepler, reflecting the generational gap in manufacturing and design.

Both cards support PCIe 3.0, but the TITAN V uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0), a mobile module interface. The TITAN V supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The TITAN V's DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is higher than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0).

The TITAN V has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, while the Quadro K4100M has a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the TITAN V runs at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective, and the Quadro runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. The TITAN V's memory type (HBM2) is fundamentally different from the Quadro's GDDR5, with a 4096-bit bus versus 256-bit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | TITAN V CEO Edition | Quadro K4100M |

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

| Architecture | Volta | Kepler |

| Process node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 21,100 million | 3,540 million |

| Die size | 815 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | 25.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1200 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1455 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 4096 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 5120 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 320 | 96 |

| ROPs | 128 | 32 |

| Tensor cores | 640 | None |

| FP32 | 14.90 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| Pixel rate | 186.2 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 465.6 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 100 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

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

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm | Not listed |

| Release date | 2018-06-20 | 2013-07-22 |

The TITAN V is larger, newer, and more power-hungry. The Quadro K4100M is a mobile module with no external power requirement. The TITAN V has a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the Quadro has none listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no shared benchmark tests between the two GPUs in the database, so a direct test-by-test comparison is not possible. However, the recorded data allows a meaningful comparison of their respective strengths.

The TITAN V CEO Edition's PassMark G3D score is 16988. This is a strong result, placing it well above the average GPU. The Quadro K4100M does not have a G3D score, but its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9149 suggests respectable compute performance for a mobile part. The TITAN V's G3D result is roughly 86% higher than the Quadro's OpenCL result, though these are different tests and should not be treated as directly equivalent.

The TITAN V's PassMark G2D score is 1086, which is modest. The Quadro K4100M has no G2D score, so no comparison is possible there. The Quadro's Geekbench Metal score is 6662, which is lower than its OpenCL score, indicating that Metal is not its strongest API.

The nearest rivals provide context. The TITAN V's closest competitor, the GeForce GTX 660, has an average score of 9022, a delta of 0.2%. This means the TITAN V is essentially tied with the GTX 660 in aggregate performance. The GTX 560 is at 9058 (-0.2%), the Radeon 550X at 8918 (1.3%), and the Radeon 890M at 9210 (-1.9%). The TITAN V's aggregate score of 9037 is within 2% of all four rivals, indicating that its overall standing is tightly clustered.

The Quadro K4100M's nearest rivals are similarly close. The GeForce GTX 460 has an average score of 7925, a delta of -0.2%. The Quadro P5000 is at 8039 (-1.7%), the GeForce GTX 880M at 8040 (-1.7%), and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8053 (-1.8%). The K4100M's score of 7906 is within 2% of all four, showing that it also sits in a tight competitive band.

The percentile ranks confirm the aggregate picture. The TITAN V is at the 45th percentile, and the Quadro K4100M is at the 41st percentile. Both are near the middle of the overall GPU distribution, with the TITAN V holding a modest edge. The TITAN V's average benchmark score of 9037 is 1131 points higher than the Quadro's 7906, a 14.3% advantage.

In terms of compute throughput, the TITAN V's FP32 of 14.90 TFLOPS is roughly 9.2x the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 465.6 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s, a 6.9x difference. Pixel rate is 186.2 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s, an 11x difference. Memory bandwidth is 868.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, an 8.5x difference. These ratios reveal that the TITAN V is not just faster, it is in a different performance class entirely.

The Quadro K4100M's advantages are operational, not performance-based. It draws 100 W versus 250 W, requires no external power connectors, and uses an MXM form factor suitable for mobile workstations. Its release date of 2013-07-22 predates the TITAN V's 2018-06-20 by nearly five years. The TITAN V's production status is end-of-life, and the Quadro K4100M's is also end-of-life, so neither is currently a new purchase option.

The data shows that the TITAN V CEO Edition dominates in every compute and memory metric, while the Quadro K4100M offers a lower-power, mobile-friendly alternative. For users prioritizing raw performance, the TITAN V is the unambiguous choice. For users constrained by power and form factor, the Quadro K4100M remains a viable legacy option.