Quadro K2000 vs FirePro W8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8000 and Quadro K2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
W8000 outperforms K2000 by a whopping 169% 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 | 486 | 764 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.49 | 0.18 |
| Power efficiency | 3.48 | 5.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GK107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,599 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FirePro W8000 has 172% better value for money than Quadro K2000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 30.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 0.7327 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 202 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | - | 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.18 | 3.78 |
| Recency | 14 June 2012 | 1 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 51 Watt |
FirePro W8000 has a 169% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 341% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
