GeForce 7150M vs Quadro K3100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3100M with GeForce 7150M, including specs and performance data.

K3100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
5.72
+11340%

K3100M outperforms 7150M by a whopping 11340% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6011486
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.27no data
Power efficiency5.42no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)no data
GPU code nameGK104C67
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)1 February 2006 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores7683
Core clock speed706 MHz1 MHz
Boost clock speedno data425 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate45.18no data
Floating-point processing power1.084 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs64no data

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)no data

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 typeGDDR5shared Memory
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/sno data
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 data
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12shared Memory
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
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.

K3100M 5.72
+11340%
GeForce 7150M 0.05

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 2265
+12483%
GeForce 7150M 18

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 HD33-0−1
4K16-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p60.58no data
4K124.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Valorant 18−20 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Dota 2 20−22 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Fortnite 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+350%
4−5
−350%
Valorant 18−20 0−1
World of Tanks 90−95
+944%
9−10
−944%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Dota 2 20−22 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Valorant 18−20 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
World of Tanks 40−45 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Valorant 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Valorant 5−6 0−1

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the K3100M is 1125% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3100M is ahead in 27 tests (96%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.72 0.05
Recency 23 July 2013 1 February 2006
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm

K3100M has a 11340% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7150M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 7150M 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 7150M
GeForce 7150M

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.


4 129 votes

Rate Quadro K3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 28 votes

Rate GeForce 7150M 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.