Iris Plus Graphics 950 vs Quadro K3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3100M with Iris Plus Graphics 950, including specs and performance data.

K3100M
2013, $1,999
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
5.55

Plus Graphics 950 outperforms K3100M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking668653
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.12no data
Power efficiency5.7231.20
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 11.0 (2019−2021)
GPU code nameGK104Ice Lake GT2
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date23 July 2013 (13 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores768512
Core clock speed706 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate45.1832.00
Floating-point processing power1.084 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6432
L1 Cache64 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x1
Widthno dataIGP

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

K3100M 5.55
Iris Plus Graphics 950 6.05
+9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

K3100M 2313
Samples: 805
Iris Plus Graphics 950 2519
+8.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD35
+0%
35−40
+0%
4K15
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p57.11no data
4K133.27no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Fortnite 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
−6.4%
100−105
+6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Dota 2 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Fortnite 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Dota 2 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
−4.7%
45−50
+4.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%
Valorant 55−60
−7.1%
60−65
+7.1%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how K3100M and Iris Plus Graphics 950 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 950 is 7% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.55 6.05
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 950 has a 9% higher aggregate performance score, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K3100M and Iris Plus Graphics 950.

Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Iris Plus Graphics 950 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 140 votes

Rate Quadro K3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 12 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K3100M or Iris Plus Graphics 950, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.