Quadro K3100M vs GRID K520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K520 with Quadro K3100M, including specs and performance data.
K520 outperforms K3100M by an impressive 54% 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 | 541 | 650 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.15 | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 2.86 | 5.57 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,599 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GRID K520 has 36% better value for money than K3100M.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 ×2 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 ×2 | 45.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.084 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | 4 GB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s ×2 | 102.4 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 | no data | 1.2 |
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 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | 3.0 | + |
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 50−55
+42.9%
| 35
−42.9%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+40%
| 15
−40%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 71.98
−26%
| 57.11
+26%
|
| 4K | 171.38
−28.6%
| 133.27
+28.6%
|
- K3100M has 26% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- K3100M has 29% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how GRID K520 and K3100M compete in popular games:
- GRID K520 is 43% faster in 1080p
- GRID K520 is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.31 | 5.39 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
GRID K520 has a 54.2% higher aggregate performance score.
K3100M, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.
The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3100M in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
