Quadro K5100M vs GRID T4-1Q
Quadro K5100M
Popular choices:
GRID T4-1Q
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 K5100M is positioned at rank 28 and the GRID T4-1Q is on rank 304, 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 Quadro K5100M
Performance Per Dollar GRID T4-1Q
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 | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 Quadro K5100M and GRID T4-1Q
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K5100M scores 3,264 and the GRID T4-1Q reaches 3,303 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K5100M is built on Kepler while the GRID T4-1Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (Quadro K5100M) vs 2,048 (GRID T4-1Q). Raw compute: 2.369 TFLOPS (Quadro K5100M) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID T4-1Q).
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,264 | 3,303+1% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.369 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS+104% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 768 KB+500% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K5100M comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GRID T4-1Q has 2 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: 0.5 MB (Quadro K5100M) vs 2 MB (GRID T4-1Q) — the GRID T4-1Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+300% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K5100M) vs 12_1 (GRID T4-1Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K5100M draws 100W versus the GRID T4-1Q's 225W — a 76.9% difference. The Quadro K5100M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K5100M) vs 350W (GRID T4-1Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-56% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 32.6+122% | 14.7 |
Value Analysis
The GRID T4-1Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K5100M | GRID T4-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $1880 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $600 |
| Codename | GK104 | GM204 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #562 | #525 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K5100M and GRID T4-1Q
