NVIDIA Quadro K5100M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA’s mobile professional lineup. The data shows a close overall contest: the K5100M holds an average benchmark score of 10043 against the M2000M’s 9832, a narrow 2.1% margin. The K5100M wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, but the M2000M counters with a significantly lower power draw and a more modern feature set. The verdict is split: the K5100M is the raw compute pick, while the M2000M is the efficiency and API-forward choice.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the straightforward performance winner. It delivers an average benchmark score of 10043, placing it at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, and it beats the M2000M by a 17% margin in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test (11771 vs 10057). If a user’s priority is maximum raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads, the K5100M is the clear choice from these two.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, however, is not without its own case. Its average benchmark score of 9832 is only 2.1% lower than the K5100M, yet it does so with a 55 W TDP compared to the K5100M’s 100 W. That 45% reduction in power draw is a decisive factor for mobile workstations where thermal headroom and battery life matter. Furthermore, the M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4 in its API list, while the K5100M is capped at Vulkan 1.2.175, and the M2000M has a native Geekbench Vulkan score of 9606, a capability the K5100M lacks entirely. For users running Vulkan-based applications or prioritizing battery longevity, the M2000M is the pragmatic selection.

The data does not support a universal winner. The K5100M’s 17% OpenCL lead is substantial, but the M2000M’s efficiency and newer API support make it the better fit for specific modern workloads. The K5100M’s percentile rank (48) is only one point higher than the M2000M’s (47), underscoring how close these two are in overall standing despite their architectural differences.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The K5100M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It houses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The M2000M uses the newer Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, giving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.6M per mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The K5100M fields 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K5100M has 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and double the ROPs of the M2000M. Clock speeds tell a different story: the M2000M runs at a 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost, while the K5100M is fixed at a 771 MHz base and boost. The M2000M’s higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller core, but not entirely.

Memory architectures also differ. The K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 80.19 GB/s. The K5100M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the M2000M’s is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite the M2000M’s faster memory clock, the K5100M’s wider bus gives it a 44% bandwidth advantage.

Feature support shows the generational gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the M2000M lists Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K5100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The bus interfaces also differ: the K5100M uses MXM-B (3.0), and the M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10043, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9832. The K5100M is ahead by 211 points, or 2.1%.

Q: What is the performance difference in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K5100M scores 11771 versus the M2000M’s 10057. The K5100M wins by a 17% margin.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The K5100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the M2000M has a TDP of 55 W. The M2000M draws 45 W less power.

Q: Does the M2000M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the M2000M lists Vulkan 1.4 in its API support and has a native Geekbench Vulkan score of 9606. The K5100M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has no recorded Vulkan benchmark score.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are their production statuses?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life products. The K5100M was released on 2013-07-22, and the M2000M was released on 2015-12-02.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The K5100M uses the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, while the M2000M uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture. Transistor counts are 3,540 million for the K5100M versus 1,870 million for the M2000M. Die sizes are 294 mm² versus 148 mm², with transistor densities of 12.0M / mm² and 12.6M / mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the M2000M: base clocks are 771 MHz for the K5100M and 1098 MHz for the M2000M, with boost clocks of 771 MHz and 1137 MHz. Memory clocks are 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) for the K5100M and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M2000M. Core counts heavily favor the K5100M: 1536 shading units versus 640, 128 TMUs versus 40, and 32 ROPs versus 16.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also diverge: 8 GB versus 4 GB, 256-bit versus 128-bit bus, and 115.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Pixel rates are 24.67 GPixel/s for the K5100M and 18.19 GPixel/s for the M2000M. Texture rates are 98.69 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS.

Power and interface specs differ: TDP is 100 W versus 55 W, and the bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus MXM-A (3.0). The Vulkan API support also differs, with the M2000M supporting version 1.4 and the K5100M supporting 1.2.175. Release dates are 2013-07-22 for the K5100M and 2015-12-02 for the M2000M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive win for the K5100M. The K5100M scores 11771, while the M2000M scores 10057, resulting in a 17% delta in favor of the K5100M. This is a substantial margin that aligns with the K5100M’s hardware advantages: 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, double the ROPs, double the memory capacity, and a 44% wider memory bus.

The M2000M does not win the head-to-head benchmark, but it has a 55 W TDP, which is less than half of the K5100M’s 100 W. In the context of mobile workstations, this efficiency gap is a significant practical win, even if it does not appear in the raw OpenCL score. The M2000M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9606, which the K5100M cannot match due to its older Vulkan 1.2.175 support.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the K5100M’s average score of 10043 sits between the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10013, +0.3%). The M2000M’s average of 9832 is just below the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846, -0.1%) and above the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, +0.3%). These rival positions confirm that both GPUs occupy a similar performance tier, with the K5100M holding a slight edge in aggregate.

Where Each One Wins

The K5100M wins in raw compute and memory-heavy tasks. Its 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 63% higher than the M2000M’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Its 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is 44% higher, and its 8 GB frame buffer is double the M2000M’s 4 GB, making it better suited for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The 17% OpenCL win reinforces this: any workload that scales with shading units or memory bandwidth will favor the K5100M.

The M2000M wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 55 W TDP is a 45% reduction from the K5100M’s 100 W, which is critical for battery-powered mobile workstations. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and native Geekbench Vulkan score of 9606 give it a capability that the K5100M entirely lacks, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based applications. The M2000M’s smaller die (148 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,870 million) also suggest a more thermally efficient design, though the data only confirms the TDP figures.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, the K5100M is the clear winner. For users prioritizing battery life, thermal management, or Vulkan compatibility, the M2000M is the better fit. The 2.1% average score difference is minor, but the architectural and feature gaps are not.