Quadro K3100M vs GeForce GTS 250

Place in the ranking	970	591
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	0.23
Power efficiency	0.72	5.46
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	G92B	GK104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$1,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3100M has 283% better value for money than GTS 250.

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	128	768
Core clock speed	738 MHz	706 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	45.18
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	1.084 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	64	64

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 2.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 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	Two Dual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Display Port	no data	1.2
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	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	11.1 (10_0)	12
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.0	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
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.

GTS 250 1.54

K3100M 5.87
+281%

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.

GTS 250 594

K3100M 2264
+281%

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	8−9 −325%	34 +325%
4K	3−4 −400%	15 +400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	24.88	58.79
4K	66.33	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 GTS 250 and K3100M compete in popular games:

K3100M is 325% faster in 1080p
K3100M is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	5.87
Recency	4 March 2009	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	75 Watt

K3100M has a 281.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop 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.