Quadro 4000 vs Quadro K5100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5100M with Quadro 4000, including specs and performance data.

K5100M
2013
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.28
+116%

K5100M outperforms 4000 by a whopping 116% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking506706
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.18
Power efficiency5.671.85
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF100
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,199

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 cores1536256
Core clock speed771 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate98.6915.20
Floating-point processing power2.369 TFLOPS0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12832

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)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz702 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s89.86 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 outputs1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
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 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+2.0

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.

K5100M 8.28
+116%
Quadro 4000 3.83

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.

K5100M 3190
+116%
Quadro 4000 1477

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K5100M 11427
+128%
Quadro 4000 5021

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

K5100M 33
+57.1%
Quadro 4000 21

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 HD51
+143%
21−24
−143%
4K26
+117%
12−14
−117%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data57.10
4Kno data99.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+121%
24−27
−121%
Hitman 3 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+119%
21−24
−119%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+138%
24−27
−138%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+121%
24−27
−121%
Hitman 3 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+119%
21−24
−119%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 82
+134%
35−40
−134%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+138%
24−27
−138%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+121%
24−27
−121%
Hitman 3 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+119%
21−24
−119%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+138%
24−27
−138%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Hitman 3 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+143%
21−24
−143%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+150%
4−5
−150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

This is how K5100M and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:

  • K5100M is 143% faster in 1080p
  • K5100M is 117% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.28 3.83
Recency 23 July 2013 2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 142 Watt

K5100M has a 116.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 42% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5100M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro 4000 is a 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 K5100M
Quadro K5100M
NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000

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.


3.4 50 votes

Rate Quadro K5100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 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.