NVIDIA Quadro K4100M vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 2x more texture fill rate: 67.78 GTexel / s vs 33.6 billion / sec
- 10.3x more pipelines: 1152 vs 112
- 4.8x better floating-point performance: 1,627 gflops vs 336.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 5% lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- 3.6x more memory clock speed: 3200 MHz vs 900 MHz
- 6.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2762 vs 456
- 5.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 328 vs 58
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 23 July 2013 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Texture fill rate | 67.78 GTexel / s vs 33.6 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 1152 vs 112 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,627 gflops vs 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 3200 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2762 vs 456 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 328 vs 58 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 706 MHz
- Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2845 vs 1974
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3304 vs 3246
- Around 44% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2845 vs 1974
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3304 vs 3246
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 706 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2845 vs 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3304 vs 3246 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2845 vs 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3304 vs 3246 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2762 | 456 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 328 | 58 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8810 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.487 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 600.985 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.281 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.452 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.984 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1105 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1974 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3246 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1105 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1974 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3246 | 3304 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
| Code name | GK104 | G92 |
| Launch date | 23 July 2013 | 21 July 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $160 |
| Place in performance rating | 1088 | 1091 |
| Price now | $379.99 | $103.99 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 9.50 | 8.86 |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,627 gflops | 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 1152 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 67.78 GTexel / s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,540 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB / s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3200 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K4100M with others
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GT
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 460 OEM
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 545
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
IntelIris Graphics 6100
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
AMDRadeon R5 A330
NVIDIAQuadro K4100M vs
NVIDIAQuadro M500M
