Quadro K500M vs Quadro K3100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3100M and Quadro K500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K3100M outperforms K500M by a whopping 383% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 668 | 1126 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.73 | 2.54 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 768 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 45.18 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.084 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
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 size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no 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.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 HD | 35
+400%
| 7−8
−400%
|
| 4K | 15
+400%
| 3−4
−400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 57.11 | no data |
| 4K | 133.27 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+248%
|
27−30
−248%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how K3100M and Quadro K500M compete in popular games:
- K3100M is 400% faster in 1080p
- K3100M is 400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3100M is 2300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- K3100M performs better in 43 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.55 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 35 Watt |
K3100M has a 383% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K500M, on the other hand, has 114% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
