GeForce GTS 150M vs Quadro K4100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4100M with GeForce GTS 150M, including specs and performance data.
K4100M outperforms GTS 150M by a whopping 447% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 562 | 1047 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.53 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.91 | 2.00 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | G94 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1152 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 67.78 | 12.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.627 TFLOPS | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 32 |
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 | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 51 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 | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 | 48
+500%
| 8−9
−500%
|
| 4K | 13
+550%
| 2−3
−550%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 31.23 | no data |
| 4K | 115.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+121%
|
30−35
−121%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+289%
|
27−30
−289%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+121%
|
30−35
−121%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+121%
|
30−35
−121%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how K4100M and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- K4100M is 500% faster in 1080p
- K4100M is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K4100M is 2800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K4100M surpassed GTS 150M in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.18 | 1.13 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
K4100M has a 446.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 150M, on the other hand, has 122.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 150M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTS 150M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
