GRID T4-1Q vs Quadro K5100M
GRID T4-1Q
Popular choices:
Quadro K5100M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GRID T4-1Q is positioned at rank 304 and the Quadro K5100M is on rank 28, so the Quadro K5100M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID T4-1Q
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5100M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID T4-1Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K5100M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GRID T4-1Q remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID T4-1Q and Quadro K5100M
GRID T4-1Q
The GRID T4-1Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,303 points.
Quadro K5100M
The Quadro K5100M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 771 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,264 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID T4-1Q scores 3,303 and the Quadro K5100M reaches 3,264 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID T4-1Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro K5100M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID T4-1Q) vs 1,536 (Quadro K5100M). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID T4-1Q) vs 2.369 TFLOPS (Quadro K5100M).
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,303+1% | 3,264 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+33% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS+104% | 2.369 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+500% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GRID T4-1Q comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K5100M has 8 GB. The Quadro K5100M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID T4-1Q) vs 0.5 MB (Quadro K5100M) — the GRID T4-1Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 8 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_1 (GRID T4-1Q) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro K5100M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID T4-1Q draws 225W versus the Quadro K5100M's 100W — a 76.9% difference. The Quadro K5100M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID T4-1Q) vs 350W (Quadro K5100M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 100W-56% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 14.7 | 32.6+122% |
Value Analysis
The GRID T4-1Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID T4-1Q | Quadro K5100M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1880 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $600 | — |
| Codename | GM204 | GK104 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | July 23 2013 |
| Ranking | #525 | #562 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID T4-1Q and Quadro K5100M
