Quadro K1100M vs GeForce 920A

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 920A with Quadro K1100M, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 920A
2015
2 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
2.17

K1100M outperforms 920A by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking858795
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.05
Power efficiency4.584.38
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK208BGK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$109.94

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384384
Core clock speed954 MHz706 MHz
Number of transistors915 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5322.59
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.5422 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs3232

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1001 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth16.02 GB/s44.8 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA3.5+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 920A 2.17
K1100M 2.83
+30.4%

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.

GeForce 920A 836
K1100M 1090
+30.4%

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 HD12−14
−41.7%
17
+41.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.47

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GeForce 920A and K1100M compete in popular games:

  • K1100M is 42% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.17 2.83
Recency 13 March 2015 23 July 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 45 Watt

GeForce 920A has an age advantage of 1 year, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

K1100M, on the other hand, has a 30.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 920A in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 920A is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1100M 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 920A
GeForce 920A
NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
Quadro K1100M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 13 votes

Rate GeForce 920A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 220 votes

Rate Quadro K1100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.