Quadro K1100M vs GeForce GTX 680M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680M with Quadro K1100M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.40
+197%

GTX 680M outperforms K1100M by a whopping 197% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking500794
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.631.05
Power efficiency5.864.39
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date4 June 2012 (12 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$310.50 $109.94

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680M has 246% better value for money than K1100M.

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 cores1344384
Core clock speed719 MHz706 MHz
Boost clock speed758 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate84.9022.59
Floating-point processing power2.038 TFLOPS0.5422 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s44.8 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 outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
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.

GTX 680M 8.40
+197%
K1100M 2.83

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.

GTX 680M 3239
+197%
K1100M 1090

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 680M 5898
+223%
K1100M 1827

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 680M 21534
+139%
K1100M 8992

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 680M 4049
+202%
K1100M 1341

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 680M 27684
+200%
K1100M 9228

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.

GTX 680M 9345
+209%
K1100M 3024

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 680M 58
+229%
K1100M 18

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 680M 33
+267%
K1100M 9

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:

900p67
+219%
21−24
−219%
Full HD64
+276%
17
−276%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.856.47

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+267%
14−16
−267%
Hitman 3 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+52.6%
35−40
−52.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+267%
14−16
−267%
Hitman 3 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.3%
23
−4.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+52.6%
35−40
−52.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+267%
14−16
−267%
Hitman 3 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+500%
4
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+52.6%
35−40
−52.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Hitman 3 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+212%
16−18
−212%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

This is how GTX 680M and K1100M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680M is 219% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680M is 276% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 680M is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 680M surpassed K1100M in all 61 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.40 2.83
Recency 4 June 2012 23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 45 Watt

GTX 680M has a 196.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K1100M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 122.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1100M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1100M 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.

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 GeForce GTX 680M
GeForce GTX 680M
NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
Quadro K1100M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.1 45 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 220 votes

Rate Quadro K1100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.