NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile GPUs, and it clearly favors the older professional part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M’s 9,745 points. That is a 20.8% advantage for the Quadro K5100M, a decisive margin in raw compute workloads.

The GTX 950M has no recorded head-to-head win in the database, as the only shared benchmark result belongs exclusively to the Quadro. The K5100M’s OpenCL score also places it well above its own average benchmark score of 10,043, indicating that the OpenCL workload plays to its strengths. The GTX 950M’s OpenCL result of 9,745 sits notably higher than its overall average of 8,135, but it still trails the Quadro by a substantial margin.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the gap. The Quadro K5100M’s average benchmark score of 10,043 places it slightly above the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M, which averages 10,013, and just behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070. The delta between the K5100M and the R9 M375 is only -0.3%, meaning the two are effectively tied on average. The K5100M also holds a 0.8% edge over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, which averages 9,959, and a 2% lead over the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, which averages 9,846.

The GTX 950M’s average score of 8,135 puts it in a different tier entirely. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, averages 8,167, which is just 0.4% ahead. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 averages 8,129, a 0.1% difference from the GTX 950M. The NVIDIA GeForce 945M averages 8,099, placing it 0.4% behind, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 averages 8,080, a 0.7% deficit. In other words, the GTX 950M sits in a tightly packed cluster of GPUs averaging around 8,100 to 8,200 points, while the Quadro K5100M operates in a group averaging near 10,000 points.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5100M wins decisively in compute-oriented workloads, as evidenced by its OpenCL result. With 20.8% more performance in that test, it is the clear choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computation, such as rendering, simulation, or scientific processing. Its higher average benchmark score of 10,043 versus 8,135, a difference of roughly 23%, further confirms that the K5100M is the stronger all-around performer in the recorded data.

The GTX 950M, by contrast, has no benchmark win in the database against the K5100M. Its strengths lie elsewhere, though the data does not quantify them. The GTX 950M does support Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K5100M supports only Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the GTX 950M can run newer Vulkan applications that require a higher API version, even if its raw compute performance is lower. The GTX 950M also has a recorded Vulkan score of 6,525, a result the K5100M does not have in the database, indicating that the newer Maxwell architecture has at least some API-level advantages in graphics workloads.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the Quadro K5100M is the superior part. For those needing the latest Vulkan feature set, the GTX 950M offers compatibility the K5100M cannot match. The database shows no other use-case split, so the decision rests primarily on compute performance versus API modernity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. The GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip, built on Maxwell, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the similarities end there.

The K5100M’s GK104 die is substantially larger and more complex. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GTX 950M’s GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell chip achieves a slightly higher density despite having roughly half the transistors.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Kepler part has more than twice the shader count and four times the TMU count. This explains the K5100M’s higher throughput: its pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M, and its texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.369 TFLOPS for the K5100M versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950M.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The K5100M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, producing only 28.80 GB/s. The K5100M’s memory bandwidth is exactly four times that of the GTX 950M, a massive gap for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The memory clocks are listed at 900 MHz for both, but the K5100M’s effective rate is 3.6 Gbps, while the GTX 950M’s is 1800 Mbps, reflecting the different memory types.

Clock speeds differ as well. The K5100M runs at a base and boost of 771 MHz, with no boost variability. The GTX 950M has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, meaning it runs at higher frequencies but with far fewer cores. The GTX 950M’s higher clocks cannot compensate for its smaller execution resources.

Form factors and interfaces also separate the two. The K5100M uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The GTX 950M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Neither requires external power connectors, and both are marked end-of-life in the database. The K5100M was released in July 2013, while the GTX 950M followed in March 2015. The K5100M’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 950M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile.

API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ, with the K5100M at 1.2.175 and the GTX 950M at 1.4. The K5100M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, while the GTX 950M scores 6,525 in that test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 11,771, which is 20.8% higher than the GTX 950M’s 9,745.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare on average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro K5100M averages 10,043 across recorded benchmarks, while the GTX 950M averages 8,135. That is a difference of approximately 23% in favor of the K5100M.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU?

A: For the K5100M, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (average 10,070, 0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (average 10,013, 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (average 9,959, 0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (average 9,846, 2% behind). For the GTX 950M, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (average 8,167, 0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (average 8,129, 0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (average 8,099, 0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 (average 8,080, 0.7% behind).

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The GTX 950M has 28.80 GB/s from 4 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The K5100M’s bandwidth is exactly four times higher.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4, giving the GTX 950M a newer Vulkan feature set.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W. Neither requires external power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | GeForce 900M |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.67 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 98.69 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.369 TFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The specification table shows a clear division: the K5100M is a larger, more powerful Kepler design with superior memory bandwidth and compute throughput, while the GTX 950M is a smaller, more efficient Maxwell design with higher clocks and a newer Vulkan implementation. The K5100M’s 256-bit GDDR5 configuration dwarfs the GTX 950M’s 128-bit DDR3 setup, and its 1,536 shading units provide a 2.4x advantage over the GTX 950M’s 640. In every measured performance category, the K5100M leads, though the GTX 950M compensates with a 75 W TDP versus 100 W and a more recent API profile. The database records only one shared benchmark, but that result, combined with the average scores, consistently points to the K5100M as the faster GPU overall.