Quadro K5100M vs GeForce GTX 980

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with Quadro K5100M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 165 Watt
28.89
+246%

GTX 980 outperforms K5100M by a whopping 246% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking198506
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.87no data
Power efficiency12.055.74
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM204GK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date19 September 2014 (10 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 no data

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 cores20481536
Core clock speed1064 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate155.698.69
Floating-point processing power4.981 TFLOPS2.369 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs128128

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s900 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s115.2 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Display Portno data1.2
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus++
BatteryBoost+-
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 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
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 980 28.89
+246%
K5100M 8.34

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 980 11107
+247%
K5100M 3205

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 980 17605
+156%
K5100M 6880

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 980 37997
+53.2%
K5100M 24795

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 980 12938
+170%
K5100M 4793

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 980 85374
+175%
K5100M 31015

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 980 34883
+205%
K5100M 11427

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 323076
+14605%
K5100M 2197

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 980 96
+191%
K5100M 33

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 HD92
+87.8%
49
−87.8%
1440p50
+257%
14−16
−257%
4K40
+37.9%
29
−37.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.97no data
1440p10.98no data
4K13.73no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+250%
16−18
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+269%
16−18
−269%
Elden Ring 95−100
+322%
21−24
−322%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+178%
27−30
−178%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+250%
16−18
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+269%
16−18
−269%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+294%
30−35
−294%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+236%
21−24
−236%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+165%
21−24
−165%
Valorant 110−120
+297%
27−30
−297%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 77
+185%
27−30
−185%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+250%
16−18
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+269%
16−18
−269%
Dota 2 48
+65.5%
27−30
−65.5%
Elden Ring 95−100
+322%
21−24
−322%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+131%
35−40
−131%
Fortnite 105
+114%
45−50
−114%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+294%
30−35
−294%
Grand Theft Auto V 72
+148%
27−30
−148%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+236%
21−24
−236%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 194
+194%
65−70
−194%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+165%
21−24
−165%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
+109%
32
−109%
Valorant 110−120
+297%
27−30
−297%
World of Tanks 270−280
+117%
120−130
−117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 67
+148%
27−30
−148%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+250%
16−18
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+269%
16−18
−269%
Dota 2 95−100
+234%
27−30
−234%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+131%
35−40
−131%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+294%
30−35
−294%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 69
+4.5%
65−70
−4.5%
Valorant 110−120
+297%
27−30
−297%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Elden Ring 50−55
+382%
10−12
−382%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+400%
10−11
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+327%
40−45
−327%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
World of Tanks 180−190
+213%
60−65
−213%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 47
+213%
14−16
−213%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+389%
18−20
−389%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+365%
16−18
−365%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+364%
14−16
−364%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Valorant 80−85
+286%
21−24
−286%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Dota 2 59
+211%
18−20
−211%
Elden Ring 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Grand Theft Auto V 59
+211%
18−20
−211%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70
+192%
24−27
−192%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59
+211%
18−20
−211%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 22
+214%
7−8
−214%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Dota 2 50−55
+174%
18−20
−174%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+290%
10−11
−290%
Fortnite 30
+275%
8−9
−275%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+400%
9−10
−400%
Valorant 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%

This is how GTX 980 and K5100M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 is 88% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 is 257% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 is 38% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 is 1250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980 surpassed K5100M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.89 8.34
Recency 19 September 2014 23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 100 Watt

GTX 980 has a 246.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

K5100M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 65% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5100M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop card while Quadro K5100M 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 980
GeForce GTX 980
NVIDIA Quadro K5100M
Quadro K5100M

Other comparisons

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.


4.2 1523 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 50 votes

Rate Quadro K5100M 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.