T400 vs Quadro K4100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M with T400, including specs and performance data.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
6.18

T400 outperforms K4100M by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking558482
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.53no data
Power efficiency4.8821.27
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK104TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)6 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores1152384
Core clock speed706 MHz420 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1425 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate67.7834.20
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPS1.094 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs9624

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 3.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputs3x mini-DisplayPort
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA+7.5

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.

K4100M 6.18
T400 8.08
+30.7%

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.

K4100M 2762
T400 3609
+30.7%

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.

K4100M 8810
T400 16998
+92.9%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

K4100M 7058
T400 15885
+125%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

K4100M 6821
T400 16856
+147%

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 HD48
−25%
60−65
+25%
4K13
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23no data
4K115.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Fortnite 40−45
−22%
50−55
+22%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Valorant 70−75
−30.1%
95−100
+30.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
−28.4%
140−150
+28.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Dota 2 50−55
−22.6%
65−70
+22.6%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Fortnite 40−45
−22%
50−55
+22%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Valorant 70−75
−30.1%
95−100
+30.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Dota 2 50−55
−22.6%
65−70
+22.6%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Valorant 70−75
−30.1%
95−100
+30.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
−22%
50−55
+22%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
−25%
65−70
+25%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−28.2%
50−55
+28.2%
Valorant 75−80
−25%
95−100
+25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
−25%
30−33
+25%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

This is how K4100M and T400 compete in popular games:

  • T400 is 25% faster in 1080p
  • T400 is 23% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.18 8.08
Recency 23 July 2013 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 30 Watt

K4100M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T400, on the other hand, has a 30.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The T400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation card while T400 is a workstation one.

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 K4100M
Quadro K4100M
NVIDIA T400
T400

Other comparisons

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.


4.2 92 votes

Rate Quadro K4100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 382 votes

Rate T400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K4100M or T400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.