GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they belong to different architectural generations and target different physical platforms. The M4000 is a desktop-oriented, single-slot card based on Maxwell 2.0, while the K3100M is a mobile MXM module based on the older Kepler design. The benchmark data shows the M4000 delivers more than triple the Vulkan performance and over triple the OpenCL performance of the K3100M, making it the clear performance leader in every head-to-head test recorded.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 in OpenCL compared to the Quadro K3100M?

A: The M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K3100M scores 6,154. This results in a delta of 210.7% in favor of the M4000.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the M4000 achieves a score of 24,640 versus 5,484 for the K3100M. The M4000 leads by 349.3%, which is its largest margin of victory across all shared benchmarks.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The K3100M has an average score of 5,154, which places it in the 30th percentile.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The M4000’s feature level is higher.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use a 28 nm process node from TSMC. However, the M4000’s chip (GM204) is physically larger and contains more transistors than the K3100M’s chip (GK104).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The M4000 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus width.

Architecture Differences

The M4000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, whereas the K3100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.1M transistors per mm². The K3100M has 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 12.0M / mm².

The M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). In contrast, the K3100M has only 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This core configuration difference is substantial, with the M4000 offering more than double the shading units and TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs.

Memory architecture also differs. The M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), producing a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), and delivers 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000’s memory bandwidth is nearly double that of the K3100M.

The physical form factors are completely distinct. The M4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The K3100M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the M4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the K3100M’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Power consumption is another major divider. The M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, while the K3100M is rated at 75 W. API support differs as well, with the M4000 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 in raw performance. In the only two shared benchmarks available, the M4000 wins both, with deltas of 210.7% (OpenCL) and 349.3% (Vulkan). The M4000’s average benchmark score of 5,467 is 313 points higher than the K3100M’s 5,154, and its percentile ranking (32nd) is two points higher.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the M4000 is the obvious choice. It offers more than double the shading units, double the ROPs, double the memory capacity, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. The desktop form factor with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs makes it suitable for fixed workstations with multiple monitors.

The K3100M, however, serves a different purpose. As an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no external power connectors, it is designed for mobile workstations. Its lower power draw and portable form factor are its primary advantages. If a laptop chassis requires a Kepler-generation GPU, the K3100M is the only option among these two. There is no scenario in the benchmark data where the K3100M outperforms the M4000, so the choice comes down to platform constraints rather than performance.

Pick the M4000 for stationary, high-performance tasks. Pick the K3100M only if the system requires an MXM module with lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the K3100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture. Transistor count is 5,200 million versus 3,540 million, and die size is 398 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 13.1M / mm² for the M4000 and 12.0M / mm² for the K3100M.

Clock speeds are recorded differently. The M4000 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The K3100M has a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration shows 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the M4000, versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the K3100M. Bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Core counts differ sharply: 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the M4000; 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the K3100M. Pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS for the M4000 versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the K3100M.

The M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, is single-slot, uses a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The K3100M is an MXM Module with 75 W TDP and no power connectors. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M4000 and MXM-B (3.0) for the K3100M. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus Portable Device Dependent. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4; the K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Dimensions are 241 mm x 111 mm for the M4000, while the K3100M has no listed dimensions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two benchmark tests were run on both GPUs, and the M4000 won both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the M4000 scored 19,118 against the K3100M’s 6,154. The delta is 210.7%, meaning the M4000 is roughly three times faster in this compute workload. This is consistent with the core count advantage: the M4000 has 1,664 shading units versus 768, and a higher FP32 throughput of 2.573 TFLOPS versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the M4000 scored 24,640 and the K3100M scored 5,484. The delta here is even larger at 349.3%. This suggests the M4000’s newer architecture and higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) provide a substantial advantage in graphics API workloads that leverage modern features. The M4000’s Vulkan 1.4 support versus the K3100M’s Vulkan 1.2.175 may also contribute to the gap.

The M4000 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The K3100M has no wins. The average benchmark scores reflect this trend: the M4000’s average is 5,467, while the K3100M’s is 5,154. The M4000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, -0.3%), AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, -0.6%), and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, -0.7%). The K3100M’s rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, -0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1.1%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -1.6%), and AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063, 1.8%).

Where Each One Wins

The M4000 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are both dominated by the M4000, with margins of 210.7% and 349.3% respectively. The M4000 also has a higher average benchmark score (5,467 versus 5,154) and a higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 30th). If the workload involves compute, rendering, or modern graphics APIs, the M4000 is the superior choice based on this data.

The K3100M has no benchmark wins. Its only advantages are qualitative: a lower TDP of 75 W versus 120 W, an MXM form factor for mobile systems, and no requirement for external power connectors. For a laptop workstation where power draw and physical size are critical, the K3100M is the only viable option between the two. It also has a longer history, with a release date of 2013-07-22 compared to the M4000’s 2015-06-28, but this does not translate into any performance benefit.

In terms of use cases, the M4000 fits desktop workstations with room for a single-slot card, a 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W PSU. It supports multiple DisplayPort outputs for multi-monitor setups. The K3100M fits mobile workstations using the MXM-B interface, where portability and lower power consumption take precedence over raw performance. The data shows no scenario where the K3100M outperforms the M4000 in compute or graphics benchmarks, so its selection is purely platform-driven.