NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear, but not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M in the two shared benchmark tests. The K3100M wins both recorded OpenCL and Vulkan tests, securing a 2-0 win count. The M500M, despite being the newer part, does not manage to outpace its predecessor in these specific workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K3100M scores 6154, while the M500M posts 5986. This gives the K3100M a 2.7% advantage. The margin is modest, indicating that while the K3100M has the edge in raw compute throughput for this API, the M500M is not far behind. The gap narrows further when considering the average benchmark scores of their closest rivals, suggesting both cards operate in a similar performance tier.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar outcome. The K3100M scores 5484 versus the M500M’s 5222, a delta of 4.8%. This is a more pronounced difference than in OpenCL, but still within a range that suggests architectural efficiency plays a role rather than a massive raw power advantage. The K3100M’s stronger showing in Vulkan points to better driver optimization or hardware scheduling for this newer API on the Kepler architecture.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, which actually exceeds the K3100M’s average of 5154. This discrepancy is notable: the M500M’s average includes its Vulkan score, which is lower, but its OpenCL score is high enough to push its average above the K3100M’s. The K3100M’s average is dragged down by its Metal score of 3823, a test the M500M does not have recorded. This means that while the K3100M wins the two direct comparisons, the M500M has a higher typical score across its recorded tests.

The percentile rankings reinforce this mixed picture. The M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the K3100M is at the 30th. The M500M’s higher percentile, despite losing both head-to-head tests, reflects its better average benchmark score. This suggests that the M500M may be more consistent across a wider range of tasks, even if it trails in the specific APIs tested.

For the nearest rivals, the M500M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8790M with an average score of 5691, which is 1.5% higher than the M500M’s 5604. The M500M edges out the AMD FirePro M4000 by 1.2% and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 by 1.7%, while leading the GeForce GTX 765M by 1.9%. The K3100M’s rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, which is 0.1% behind it, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211, which trails by 1.1%. The K3100M also leads the GeForce GTX 760M by 1.6% and the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.8%. These figures place both cards near the top of their respective competitive clusters.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, which explains much of their performance behavior. The M500M is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, while the K3100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M per mm². The K3100M’s larger die and higher transistor count suggest a more complex design with more execution resources.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The K3100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a sevenfold difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily favors the K3100M in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The M500M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the K3100M runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The K3100M’s wider bus compensates for its lower clock speed, resulting in significantly higher throughput.

Compute unit counts also differ. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The K3100M doubles these resources with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the K3100M a theoretical pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s, compared to the M500M’s 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows suit: the K3100M delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus the M500M’s 863.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The M500M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, whereas the K3100M stays fixed at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The M500M’s higher clocks partially offset its fewer cores, but not enough to close the gap in raw throughput. The M500M’s TDP is 30 W, while the K3100M draws 75 W, making the M500M more power-efficient per watt, though the K3100M offers more absolute performance.

The bus interface differs as well: the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules and both list display outputs as dependent on the portable device. API support shows a difference in Vulkan versions: the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K3100M has a recorded Metal benchmark, which the M500M lacks, indicating different compatibility profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The K3100M wins in scenarios that demand high memory bandwidth and raw compute throughput. Its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is more than seven times that of the M500M, making it the clear choice for large data transfers, high-resolution textures, or compute tasks that repeatedly access memory. The doubling of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs means the K3100M handles geometry-heavy workloads and fill-rate-bound rendering more effectively. The Vulkan benchmark result, where the K3100M leads by 4.8%, suggests it also has an edge in modern API workloads that leverage parallel execution across many cores.

The M500M wins in efficiency and consistency. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the K3100M’s 75 W, meaning it generates less heat and requires less power, which is critical for thin-and-light mobile workstations. Its higher average benchmark score of 5604 versus the K3100M’s 5154 indicates that across all recorded tests, the M500M performs better on average. This is due to the K3100M’s weak Metal score of 3823, which pulls its average down. The M500M’s higher base and boost clocks (1029/1124 MHz versus 706 MHz) give it an advantage in lightly-threaded tasks or workloads that are sensitive to clock speed rather than core count.

For specific use cases, the K3100M is better suited for tasks like 3D modeling, video editing with high-resolution timelines, or GPU-accelerated compute where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. The M500M, with its lower power draw and better average score, is more appropriate for general office work, 2D CAD, or any workload where the GPU is not the primary bottleneck. The M500M’s smaller die size (77 mm²) and lower transistor count also suggest it is cheaper to produce, though pricing data is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average score of 5154. The M500M is 8.7% higher in this metric.

Q: In the head-to-head tests, which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6154, compared to the M500M’s 5986, a margin of 2.7%.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between these two cards?

A: The K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the M500M has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus. The K3100M’s bandwidth is roughly seven times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, exactly double the 384 shading units found in the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the K3100M has a TDP of 75 W. The M500M consumes less than half the power of the K3100M.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both the M500M and the K3100M support DirectX 12 (11_0). They also both support OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in Vulkan support: the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload priorities. For users who need maximum compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger choice. It wins both direct benchmark comparisons, offers more than double the shading units and TMUs, and provides a massive memory bandwidth advantage. The K3100M’s higher FP32 performance (1,084.4 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s) make it the better option for rendering, simulation, and any task that can use its extra cores and memory throughput.

For users who prioritize efficiency or run a broader mix of applications, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the better pick. Its average benchmark score of 5604 exceeds the K3100M’s 5154, meaning that in typical use, the M500M delivers better overall results. Its 30 W TDP makes it far easier to cool and power in a mobile chassis, and its higher clocks (1124 MHz boost) help in latency-sensitive or single-threaded tasks. The M500M’s higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 30th) confirms that it is more competitive across the entire GPU landscape.

The K3100M’s Vulkan advantage of 4.8% indicates it is better for future-proofing in modern APIs, but the M500M’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175 suggests the M500M has more current driver software. The K3100M’s Metal benchmark score of 3823 is a weakness if macOS compatibility matters, as it drags down its average. Neither card is suitable for heavy 4K gaming or high-end VR, given their modest absolute scores.

In summary, the K3100M is the performance leader in direct comparison, while the M500M is the efficiency and consistency leader. The choice hinges on whether raw power or balanced performance matters more for the intended application.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M500M | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

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

| Chip | GM108S | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 16 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 863.2 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-04-26 | 2013-07-22 |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Quadro Maxwell-M |