GeForce Go 7900 GTX vs Quadro K2100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2100M with GeForce Go 7900 GTX, including specs and performance data.
K2100M outperforms Go 7900 GTX by a whopping 403% 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 | 786 | 1239 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.56 | 1.11 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | G71 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 18 April 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $84.95 | no data |
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 | 576 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.02 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7684 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 752 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.0 GB/s | 38.4 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 | 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 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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
+500%
| 4−5
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.54 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+75%
|
27−30
−75%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+221%
|
18−20
−221%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+75%
|
27−30
−75%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+75%
|
27−30
−75%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how K2100M and Go 7900 GTX compete in popular games:
- K2100M is 500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2100M is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K2100M surpassed Go 7900 GTX in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.27 | 0.65 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 18 April 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 45 Watt |
K2100M has a 403.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
Go 7900 GTX, on the other hand, has 22.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K2100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7900 GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2100M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce Go 7900 GTX 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.
