GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 represent two distinct eras of professional mobile graphics. The K5100M is a Kepler-generation part from 2013, while the P4000 is a Pascal-generation product from 2017. The data shows a clear generational shift in performance and capabilities, but the comparison is not without nuance, as both cards occupy similar positions in their respective lineups. The benchmark results and architectural specifications provided offer a detailed picture of how these two professional GPUs differ.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively in favor of the newer NVIDIA Quadro P4000. The P4000 scores 36,212, while the Quadro K5100M scores 11,771. This represents a 67.5% delta, meaning the P4000 delivers roughly three times the raw compute performance of the K5100M in this workload. This is a monumental gap, far exceeding typical generational improvements, and it underscores the massive architectural leap between Kepler and Pascal.

The K5100M’s lone available benchmark results paint a picture of a card that was competitive in its era but is now firmly in legacy territory. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,771 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,043. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (average score 10,070, delta of -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (average score 10,013, delta of 0.3%). This indicates that the K5100M’s performance is essentially on par with these mid-range mobile parts, sitting right at the median of the GPU performance distribution. It is also within 2% of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (average score 9,846), showing that its compute power is comparable to that older desktop workstation card.

The P4000, despite its much higher OpenCL score, shows a slightly lower average benchmark score of 9,665 and a 47th percentile ranking. This apparent contradiction is explained by the wider variety of benchmarks run on the P4000, which include older DirectX tests where it performs poorly. For instance, its Passmark DirectX 9 score is 181, but its DirectX 12 score drops to 40, and its DirectX 10 score is 66. These legacy API tests drag down its average. In contrast, the P4000 excels in modern compute and graphics workloads, as evidenced by its Geekbench Vulkan score of 41,786 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,115. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (average score 9,653, delta of 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (average score 9,645, delta of 0.2%), indicating that in the aggregate of all benchmarks, it sits in a similar performance class to those mobile parts, despite its compute advantage in OpenCL.

The head-to-head data shows a single win for the P4000 and zero for the K5100M. The sheer magnitude of the OpenCL delta is the most important takeaway. The K5100M is not just slower; it is categorically outclassed in compute throughput. This is a decisive victory for the P4000, and it is the single most important performance metric for comparing these two cards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10,043, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P4000’s average score of 9,665. However, this average is skewed because the P4000 has been tested in more legacy benchmarks where it scores poorly, whereas the K5100M has only two modern compute scores.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P4000 in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro P4000 is 67.5% faster than the Quadro K5100M in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The P4000 scores 36,212, while the K5100M scores 11,771.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a memory bandwidth of 243.3 GB/s, which is more than double the Quadro K5100M’s 115.2 GB/s. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern graphics APIs like Vulkan?

A: Yes, both support Vulkan, but with different versions. The Quadro P4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The P4000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the K5100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Quadro K5100M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), designed for laptops. The Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card that uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the Quadro K5100M’s pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s. This indicates the P4000’s 64 ROPs are far more efficient than the K5100M’s 32 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural differences explain the performance gap. The Quadro K5100M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The Quadro P4000, in contrast, uses the GP104 chip with the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a slightly larger die of 314 mm², achieving a much higher transistor density of 22.9M / mm². This process shrink and density increase are the root causes of the P4000’s superior performance.

The compute core configurations differ significantly. The K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The P4000 has more shading units at 1,792, but fewer TMUs at 112, and double the ROPs at 64. The increase in ROPs is critical for the P4000’s higher pixel rate. The clock speeds also tell a story of efficiency. The K5100M’s base and boost clocks are both locked at 771 MHz, while the P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. This higher clock speed, combined with the architectural efficiency of Pascal, allows the P4000 to reach 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the K5100M’s 2.369 TFLOPS. The P4000 also has a dedicated FP16 rate of 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64), while the K5100M has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture also differs. While both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, the P4000 runs its memory at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), yielding 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5100M runs its memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), providing only 115.2 GB/s. This doubling of memory bandwidth is another major factor in the P4000’s compute lead. Finally, the API support highlights the generational gap: the P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5100M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior performer for any modern workload. Its 67.5% lead in OpenCL compute, combined with a 243.3 GB/s memory bandwidth (over double the K5100M’s 115.2 GB/s) and a pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s, makes it categorically faster. The P4000’s support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 also ensures better compatibility with current software. The K5100M’s higher average benchmark score is a statistical artifact of limited testing and does not reflect real-world performance parity. The K5100M should be considered only for legacy systems requiring its specific MXM form factor and Kepler-era driver support. For any new deployment or upgrade, the P4000 is the clear choice based on raw performance, memory throughput, and modern API support. The P4000’s 47th percentile ranking, despite its high compute scores, is due to poor performance in legacy DirectX 9/10/11 tests, which are irrelevant for professional applications. Users needing modern compute and graphics should select the P4000 without hesitation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 314 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 24.67 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 98.69 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.369 TFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 100 W | 105 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (LxH) | Not specified | 241 mm x 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2017-02-05 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 815 USD |