Quadro K2100M vs Radeon Pro 555X

Place in the ranking	506	728
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.63
Power efficiency	7.74	4.43
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	GK106
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	16 July 2018 (6 years ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$84.95

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	576
Core clock speed	907 MHz	667 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.54	32.02
Floating-point processing power	1.393 TFLOPS	0.7684 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	48	48

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	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1275 MHz	752 MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.6 GB/s	48.0 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	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	-
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_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
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 555X 8.42
+139%

K2100M 3.53

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 555X 3235
+138%

K2100M 1357

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.

Pro 555X 12696
+178%

K2100M 4572

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Pro 555X 13051
+218%

K2100M 4104

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

55−60
+129%

−129%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +113%	16−18 −113%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Valorant	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Dota 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +89.5%	18−20 −89.5%
Fortnite	50−55 +150%	20−22 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +113%	16−18 −113%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +116%	30−35 −116%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
Valorant	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%
World of Tanks	120−130 +107%	60−65 −107%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +170%	10−11 −170%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Dota 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +89.5%	18−20 −89.5%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +113%	16−18 −113%
Forza Horizon 5	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +116%	30−35 −116%
Valorant	30−35 +343%	7−8 −343%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +68%	24−27 −68%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
World of Tanks	60−65 +144%	24−27 −144%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Valorant	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Fortnite	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Valorant	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

This is how Pro 555X and K2100M compete in popular games:

Pro 555X is 129% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 555X is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro 555X is ahead in 59 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.42	3.53
Recency	16 July 2018	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt

Pro 555X has a 138.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

K2100M, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 555X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2100M in performance tests.

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