Quadro K3100M vs Radeon PRO W7500

Place in the ranking	121	591
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	0.25
Power efficiency	37.28	5.46
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Navi 33	GK104
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$429	$1,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7500 has 39900% 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	1792	768
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	706 MHz
Boost clock speed	1700 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	13,300 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	190.4	45.18
Floating-point processing power	12.19 TFLOPS	1.084 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	112	64
Ray Tracing Cores	28	no data

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	216 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1344 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	172.0 GB/s	102.4 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

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 Ultimate (12_2)	12
Shader Model	6.7	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	+
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.

PRO W7500 37.42
+537%

K3100M 5.87

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.

PRO W7500 14437
+538%

K3100M 2264

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	210−220 +518%	34 −518%
4K	95−100 +533%	15 −533%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.04	58.79
4K	4.52	133.27

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 +0%	46 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +0%	7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +0%	5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how PRO W7500 and K3100M compete in popular games:

PRO W7500 is 518% faster in 1080p
PRO W7500 is 533% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 70 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.42	5.87
Recency	3 August 2023	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	75 Watt

PRO W7500 has a 537.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation one.

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