Quadro K4100M vs GRID K280Q
Quadro K4100M
Popular choices:
GRID K280Q
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 Quadro K4100M is positioned at rank 52 and the GRID K280Q is on rank 323, so the Quadro K4100M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K4100M
Performance Per Dollar GRID K280Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K280Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K4100M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K280Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K280Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $261), it costs 81% less, resulting in a 434.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+434.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($261) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
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 Quadro K4100M and GRID K280Q
Quadro K4100M
The Quadro K4100M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 1152 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,773 points. Launch price was $1,499.
GRID K280Q
The GRID K280Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,840 points. Launch price was $1,875.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K4100M scores 2,773 and the GRID K280Q reaches 2,840 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K4100M is built on Kepler while the GRID K280Q uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,152 (Quadro K4100M) vs 1,536 (GRID K280Q). Raw compute: 1.627 TFLOPS (Quadro K4100M) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K280Q).
| Feature | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,773 | 2,840+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1152 | 1536+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.627 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS+41% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 128+33% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 128 KB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro K4100M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K280Q has 2 GB. The Quadro K4100M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K4100M draws 100W versus the GRID K280Q's 225W — a 76.9% difference. The Quadro K4100M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K4100M) vs 350W (GRID K280Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-56% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Perf/Watt | 27.7+120% | 12.6 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K4100M launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $261, while the GRID K280Q launched at $2000 and now averages $50. The GRID K280Q costs 80.8% less ($211 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 10.6 (Quadro K4100M) vs 56.8 (GRID K280Q) — the GRID K280Q offers 435.8% better value.
| Feature | Quadro K4100M | GRID K280Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499-25% | $2000 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $261 | $50-81% |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.6 | 56.8+436% |
| Codename | GK104 | GK104 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #604 | #595 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K4100M and GRID K280Q
