Quadro K420 vs Quadro M2000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2000M with Quadro K420, including specs and performance data.
M2000M outperforms K420 by a whopping 370% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 567 | 993 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 11.44 | 3.26 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 December 2015 (10 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $96.67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1098 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 14.02 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 0.3364 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | Up to 29 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 HD | 36
+414%
| 7−8
−414%
|
| 4K | 11
+450%
| 2−3
−450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.81 |
| 4K | no data | 48.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+419%
|
16−18
−419%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+374%
|
27−30
−374%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+417%
|
12−14
−417%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+419%
|
16−18
−419%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+417%
|
12−14
−417%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+419%
|
16−18
−419%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+425%
|
16−18
−425%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how M2000M and Quadro K420 compete in popular games:
- M2000M is 414% faster in 1080p
- M2000M is 450% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.13 | 1.73 |
| Recency | 3 December 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 41 Watt |
M2000M has a 370% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K420, on the other hand, has 34% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Quadro K420 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
