NVS 2100M vs Quadro K2100M

Place in the ranking	725	1279
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.63	no data
Power efficiency	4.40	2.24
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK106	GT218
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$84.95	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 cores	576	16
Core clock speed	667 MHz	535 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	11 Watt
Texture fill rate	32.02	4.280
Floating-point processing power	0.7684 TFLOPS	0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	48	8

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	752 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.0 GB/s	12.64 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	1.2	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	12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	+	1.2

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.

K2100M 3.53
+881%

NVS 2100M 0.36

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.

K2100M 1360
+878%

NVS 2100M 139

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.

K2100M 10648
+973%

NVS 2100M 992

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

23
+1050%

2−3

−1050%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.69

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Hitman 3	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.4%	27−30 −46.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Hitman 3	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.4%	27−30 −46.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Hitman 3	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.4%	27−30 −46.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how K2100M and NVS 2100M compete in popular games:

K2100M is 1050% faster in 1080p

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K2100M is 350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, K2100M surpassed NVS 2100M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.53	0.36
Recency	23 July 2013	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	11 Watt

K2100M has a 880.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 2100M, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2100M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 2100M in performance tests.

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