Quadro 4000M vs Quadro K3100M

Place in the ranking	593	740
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.25	0.35
Power efficiency	5.37	2.26
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK104	GF104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,999	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000M has 40% better value for money than K3100M.

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	336
Core clock speed	706 MHz	475 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	45.18	26.60
Floating-point processing power	1.084 TFLOPS	0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	56

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	MXM-B (3.0)	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	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	80 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 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 compatibility

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	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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.

K3100M 5.87
+77.9%

Quadro 4000M 3.30

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.

K3100M 2263
+78.2%

Quadro 4000M 1270

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.

K3100M 3581
+71.2%

Quadro 4000M 2092

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.

K3100M 15120
+41%

Quadro 4000M 10722

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K3100M 6033
+15.8%

Quadro 4000M 5212

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

K3100M 19
+5.6%

Quadro 4000M 18

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	34 −109%	71 +109%
4K	15 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	58.79	6.32
4K	133.27	56.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+66.7%

6−7

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +22.5%	40−45 −22.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 +207%	14−16 −207%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +22.5%	40−45 −22.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +100%	18−20 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +50%	24−27 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 −114%	14−16 +114%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +22.5%	40−45 −22.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+100%

8−9

−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18	0−1
Hitman 3	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +85%	20−22 −85%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+42.9%

7−8

−42.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +150%	2−3 −150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

This is how K3100M and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

Quadro 4000M is 109% faster in 1080p
K3100M is 88% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K3100M is 500% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K3100M is ahead in 61 test (98%)
Quadro 4000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.87	3.30
Recency	23 July 2013	22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt

K3100M has a 77.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.