Quadro FX 770M vs Quadro K3100M

Place in the ranking	599	1216
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	0.01
Power efficiency	5.40	1.13
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK104	G96
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,999	$527

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

K3100M has 2600% better value for money than FX 770M.

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	32
Core clock speed	706 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	45.18	8.000
Floating-point processing power	1.084 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	64	16

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	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-II

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	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	25.6 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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 5.62
+922%

FX 770M 0.55

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 2265
+930%

FX 770M 220

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	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
4K	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	60.58 +190%	175.67 −190%
4K	124.94 +322%	527.00 −322%

K3100M has 190% lower cost per frame in 1080p
K3100M has 322% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +300%	6−7 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Valorant	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Fortnite	35−40	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +300%	6−7 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +513%	8−9 −513%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Valorant	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
World of Tanks	90−95 +453%	16−18 −453%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +300%	6−7 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +513%	8−9 −513%
Valorant	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
World of Tanks	40−45 +4100%	1−2 −4100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	8−9	0−1
Metro Exodus	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Valorant	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Fortnite	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
Valorant	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

This is how K3100M and FX 770M compete in popular games:

K3100M is 1000% faster in 1080p
K3100M is 1500% faster in 4K

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the K3100M is 4100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K3100M is ahead in 31 test (91%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.62	0.55
Recency	23 July 2013	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	35 Watt

K3100M has a 921.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 770M, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.

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