GMA X4500 vs Quadro K3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking588not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.23no data
Power efficiency5.42no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 5.0 (2008)
GPU code nameGK104Eaglelake
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)1 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

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 cores76880
Core clock speed706 MHz533 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate45.182.132
Floating-point processing power1.084 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs644

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no 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 Port1.2no 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 compatibility

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

DirectX1210.0
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 July 2013 1 June 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 13 Watt

K3100M has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X4500, on the other hand, has 476.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K3100M and GMA X4500. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation card while GMA X4500 is a desktop 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 Quadro K3100M
Quadro K3100M
Intel GMA X4500
GMA X4500

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.


4 125 votes

Rate Quadro K3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 328 votes

Rate GMA X4500 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.