Quadro K3100M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire with Quadro K3100M, including specs and performance data.
K3100M outperforms Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire by a moderate 17% 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 | 691 | 656 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 3.00 | 5.63 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Broadway-XT | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1600 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 45.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.084 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | 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 | DDR3, GDDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 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 support
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 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 53
−13.2%
| 60−65
+13.2%
|
| Full HD | 54
+54.3%
| 35
−54.3%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 57.11 |
| 4K | no data | 133.27 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−13.4%
|
90−95
+13.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−10%
|
65−70
+10%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−19.4%
|
40−45
+19.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−5.7%
|
35−40
+5.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−19.6%
|
60−65
+19.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5
+400%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire and K3100M compete in popular games:
- K3100M is 13% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire is 54% faster in 1080p
- K3100M is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire is 86% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the K3100M is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire performs better in 1 test (2%)
- K3100M performs better in 59 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.69 | 5.49 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
K3100M has a 17.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire is a notebook 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.
