Quadro K4100M vs GeForce GT 755M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI with Quadro K4100M, including specs and performance data.
GT 755M SLI outperforms K4100M by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 502 | 554 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.53 |
| Power efficiency | 6.00 | 4.96 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N14P-? | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1152 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 1300 Million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2x ~50 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 67.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.627 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 96 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | no data | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 36
−33.3%
| 48
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 14−16
+7.7%
| 13
−7.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 31.23 |
| 4K | no data | 115.31 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
16−18
−23.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+15.6%
|
30−35
−15.6%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+21.4%
|
40−45
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
16−18
−23.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+19%
|
55−60
−19%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+20%
|
20−22
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+16.2%
|
110−120
−16.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+15.6%
|
30−35
−15.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
16−18
−23.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+19%
|
55−60
−19%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+7.7%
|
35−40
−7.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+21.2%
|
50−55
−21.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
This is how GT 755M SLI and K4100M compete in popular games:
- K4100M is 33% faster in 1080p
- GT 755M SLI is 8% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GT 755M SLI is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GT 755M SLI surpassed K4100M in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.50 | 7.02 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 23 July 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 100 Watt |
GT 755M SLI has a 21.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and 4900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 755M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M SLI is a notebook graphics 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
