GRID K260Q vs Quadro K2100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2100M with GRID K260Q, including specs and performance data.
K260Q outperforms K2100M by a whopping 115% 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 | 781 | 584 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.63 | 0.38 |
| Power efficiency | 4.54 | 2.39 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $84.95 | $937 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
K2100M has 66% better value for money than GRID K260Q.
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 | 576 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.02 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7684 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 752 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.0 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 1.2 | no data |
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 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| 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.
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 | 24
−108%
| 50−55
+108%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.54
+429%
| 18.74
−429%
|
- K2100M has 429% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−104%
|
100−105
+104%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−113%
|
130−140
+113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−110%
|
65−70
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−104%
|
100−105
+104%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−110%
|
65−70
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−90.9%
|
21−24
+90.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−104%
|
100−105
+104%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−112%
|
70−75
+112%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
This is how K2100M and GRID K260Q compete in popular games:
- GRID K260Q is 108% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.10 | 6.67 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
K2100M has 309.1% lower power consumption.
GRID K260Q, on the other hand, has a 115.2% higher aggregate performance score.
The GRID K260Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2100M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GRID K260Q is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
