Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs Quadro K3100M

Place in the ranking	598	146
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	no data
Power efficiency	5.42	9.59
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GK104	Vega 10
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	19 March 2019 (5 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 cores	768	4096
Core clock speed	706 MHz	1250 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	45.18	375.8
Floating-point processing power	1.084 TFLOPS	12.03 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	64	256

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	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	512.0 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 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.1.125
CUDA	+	-

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 5.89

Pro Vega 64X 34.78
+490%

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 2264

Pro Vega 64X 13369
+491%

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 6069

Pro Vega 64X 78565
+1195%

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 −476%	190−200 +476%
4K	16 −463%	90−95 +463%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	60.58	no data
4K	124.94	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −456%	100−105 +456%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −483%	140−150 +483%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −467%	85−90 +467%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Valorant	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −456%	100−105 +456%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Dota 2	20−22 −450%	110−120 +450%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −471%	160−170 +471%
Fortnite	35−40 −471%	200−210 +471%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −483%	140−150 +483%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −450%	110−120 +450%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −467%	85−90 +467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −471%	280−290 +471%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 −456%	100−105 +456%
Valorant	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%
World of Tanks	90−95 −485%	550−600 +485%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −456%	100−105 +456%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Dota 2	20−22 −450%	110−120 +450%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −471%	160−170 +471%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −483%	140−150 +483%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −471%	280−290 +471%
Valorant	18−20 −479%	110−120 +479%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −483%	210−220 +483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
World of Tanks	40−45 −481%	250−260 +481%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −450%	55−60 +450%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −481%	180−190 +481%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −483%	70−75 +483%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −445%	60−65 +445%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 −463%	45−50 +463%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%
Valorant	16−18 −463%	90−95 +463%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Dota 2	16−18 −488%	100−105 +488%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Fortnite	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Valorant	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%

This is how K3100M and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64X is 476% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 64X is 463% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.89	34.78
Recency	23 July 2013	19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	250 Watt

K3100M has 233.3% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 490.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3100M in performance tests.

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