Radeon Graphics 384SP vs Quadro K2100M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking718not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.63no data
Power efficiency4.57no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK106Cezanne
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores576384
Core clock speed667 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1700 MHz
Number of transistors2,540 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate32.0240.80
Floating-point processing power0.7684 TFLOPS1.306 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs4824

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed752 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth48.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 July 2013 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 45 Watt

Graphics 384SP has an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 22.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K2100M and Radeon Graphics 384SP. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K2100M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Graphics 384SP is a desktop 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 Quadro K2100M
Quadro K2100M
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP

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.


3.5 278 votes

Rate Quadro K2100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 20 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP 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.