Quadro K2000M vs GeForce GT 730

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

GT 730
2014
2048 MB DDR3
2.16

Quadro K2000M outperforms GeForce GT 730 by a significant 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking821780
Place by popularity17not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.190.28
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF108N14P-Q3
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date18 June 2014 (9 years ago)1 June 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 $265.27
Current price$77 (1.3x MSRP)$92 (0.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000M has 47% better value for money than GT 730.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores96384
Core clock speed700 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors585 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate11.2 GT/s23.84
Floating-point performance268.8 gflops572.2 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 730 and Quadro K2000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimusno data+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA2.1+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 730 2.16
K2000M 2.61
+20.8%

Quadro K2000M outperforms GeForce GT 730 by 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 730 834
K2000M 1011
+21.2%

Quadro K2000M outperforms GeForce GT 730 by 21% in Passmark.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GT 730 1170
+11.9%
K2000M 1046

GeForce GT 730 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 12% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GT 730 2919
+2.1%
K2000M 2860

GeForce GT 730 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 2% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GT 730 3605
+37.8%
K2000M 2616

GeForce GT 730 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 38% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GT 730 2682
+12.5%
K2000M 2385

GeForce GT 730 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 12% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GT 730 10
+11.1%
K2000M 9

GeForce GT 730 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 11% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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 HD18−21
−38.9%
25
+38.9%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.16 2.61
Recency 18 June 2014 1 June 2012
Cost $59.99 $265.27
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 55 Watt

The Quadro K2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 730 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 730 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 730
GeForce GT 730
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 5293 votes

Rate GeForce GT 730 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 30 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.