Quadro K4100M vs GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

Place in the ranking	505	540
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.60	0.47
Power efficiency	2.71	4.94
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GF110	GK104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	29 November 2011 (12 years ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$289	$1,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 560 Ti 448 has 240% better value for money than K4100M.

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	448	1152
Core clock speed	732 MHz	706 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	40.99	67.78
Floating-point processing power	1.312 TFLOPS	1.627 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	32
TMUs	56	96

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	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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	1280 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	320 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	950 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	152.0 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	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
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 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	2.0	+

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.

GTX 560 Ti 448 8.21
+15%

K4100M 7.14

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 560 Ti 448 4210
+15.2%

K4100M 3654

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 +14.6%	48 −14.6%
4K	14−16 +7.7%	13 −7.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.25	31.23
4K	20.64	115.31

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	67 +0%	67 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

This is how GTX 560 Ti 448 and K4100M compete in popular games:

GTX 560 Ti 448 is 15% faster in 1080p
GTX 560 Ti 448 is 8% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.21	7.14
Recency	29 November 2011	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	100 Watt

GTX 560 Ti 448 has a 15% higher aggregate performance score.

K4100M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 110% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop card while Quadro K4100M 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.