Quadro NVS 440 vs Quadro K5100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5100M with Quadro NVS 440, including specs and performance data.

K5100M
2013
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.34
+8240%

K5100M outperforms NVS 440 by a whopping 8240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5061454
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.740.22
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGK104NV43 A4
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)14 February 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$96.99

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 cores1536no data
Core clock speed771 MHz250 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million146 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt31 Watt
Texture fill rate98.692.000
Floating-point processing power2.369 TFLOPSno data
ROPs328
TMUs1288

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 1.0 x16
Lengthno data187 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB128 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s8 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 outputs2x DMS-59
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.

DirectX129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
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. 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 8.34
+8240%
NVS 440 0.10

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 3205
+8562%
NVS 440 37

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 HD490−1
4K29-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Elden Ring 21−24 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 27−30 0−1
Elden Ring 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Fortnite 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 0−1
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1
World of Tanks 120−130
+12400%
1−2
−12400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 27−30 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9−10 0−1
Elden Ring 10−12 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 60−65 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 0−1
Valorant 21−24 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Fortnite 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
Valorant 8−9 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.34 0.10
Recency 23 July 2013 14 February 2006
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 31 Watt

K5100M has a 8240% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 440, on the other hand, has 222.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 440 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5100M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro NVS 440 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 NVS 440
Quadro NVS 440

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.


3.4 50 votes

Rate Quadro K5100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 440 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.