Quadro K2000D vs GeForce GTX 460 v2

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 v2 with Quadro K2000D, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 v2
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 160 Watt
4.85
+18%

GTX 460 v2 outperforms K2000D by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking634687
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.780.36
Power efficiency2.105.57
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF114GK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date24 September 2011 (13 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 460 v2 has 117% better value for money than K2000D.

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 cores336384
Core clock speed779 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rate43.6230.53
Floating-point processing power1.046 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs5632

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length210 mm202 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.19 GB/s64 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D 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+
CUDA2.13.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

GTX 460 v2 4.85
+18%
K2000D 4.11

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.

GTX 460 v2 1871
+18%
K2000D 1586

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.

GTX 460 v2 7872
+98.1%
K2000D 3973

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.

GTX 460 v2 22
+83.3%
K2000D 12

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 4.85 4.11
Recency 24 September 2011 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 51 Watt

GTX 460 v2 has a 18% higher aggregate performance score.

K2000D, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 213.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 460 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 v2 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000D is a 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 GTX 460 v2
GeForce GTX 460 v2
NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
Quadro K2000D

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.


4.1 18 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D 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.