GeForce 315M vs Quadro K3100M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking590not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.23no data
Power efficiency5.46no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK104GT218
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 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 cores76816
Core clock speed706 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate45.184.848
Floating-point processing power1.084 TFLOPS0.03878 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs324
TMUs648

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GBUp to 512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s12.8 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 outputsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
Power managementno data8.0
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.

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.54.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

K3100M 2264
+1869%
GeForce 315M 115

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.

K3100M 15120
+1264%
GeForce 315M 1109

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 July 2013 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 14 Watt

K3100M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 315M, on the other hand, has 435.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K3100M and GeForce 315M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 315M 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 Quadro K3100M
Quadro K3100M
NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M

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.


4 127 votes

Rate Quadro K3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 157 votes

Rate GeForce 315M 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.