Quadro K4100M vs FirePro D500
Aggregate performance score
FirePro D500 outperforms Quadro K4100M by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 395 | 514 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.78 | 1.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | N15E-Q3-A2 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,499 |
| Current price | $475 | $323 (0.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro D500 has 58% better value for money than K4100M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 1152 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 69.60 | 67.78 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,227 gflops | 1,627 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro D500 and Quadro K4100M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 75−80
+50%
| 50
−50%
|
| 4K | 18−20
+38.5%
| 13
−38.5%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.73 | 7.13 |
| Recency | 18 January 2014 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 274 Watt | 100 Watt |
The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro D500 is a workstation card while Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
