Quadro K2000D vs GeForce GTX 780M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780M SLI with Quadro K2000D, including specs and performance data.

GTX 780M SLI
2013
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
18.01
+375%

GTX 780M SLI outperforms K2000D by a whopping 375% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking329738
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.18
Power efficiency6.875.66
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameN14E-GTXGK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date30 May 2013 (12 years ago)1 March 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3072384
Core clock speed823 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors7080 Million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rateno data30.53
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data202 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-

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 amount2x 4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-+
CUDA+3.0

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 HD99
+450%
18−21
−450%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data33.28

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+395%
21−24
−395%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
God of War 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+395%
21−24
−395%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+400%
12−14
−400%
Fortnite 95−100
+444%
18−20
−444%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+436%
14−16
−436%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
God of War 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+393%
14−16
−393%
Valorant 140−150
+419%
27−30
−419%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+395%
21−24
−395%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 257
+414%
50−55
−414%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Dota 2 100−110
+405%
21−24
−405%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+400%
12−14
−400%
Fortnite 95−100
+444%
18−20
−444%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+436%
14−16
−436%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
God of War 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+386%
14−16
−386%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+393%
14−16
−393%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+410%
10−11
−410%
Valorant 140−150
+419%
27−30
−419%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+381%
16−18
−381%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Dota 2 100−110
+405%
21−24
−405%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+400%
12−14
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+436%
14−16
−436%
God of War 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+393%
14−16
−393%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+410%
10−11
−410%
Valorant 140−150
+419%
27−30
−419%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+444%
18−20
−444%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+396%
27−30
−396%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+383%
35−40
−383%
Valorant 170−180
+397%
35−40
−397%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+420%
10−11
−420%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+413%
8−9
−413%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+400%
9−10
−400%
God of War 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+425%
8−9
−425%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+420%
5−6
−420%
Valorant 100−110
+395%
21−24
−395%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Dota 2 60−65
+433%
12−14
−433%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
God of War 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%

This is how GTX 780M SLI and K2000D compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780M SLI is 450% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.01 3.79
Recency 30 May 2013 1 March 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 51 Watt

GTX 780M SLI has a 375.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.

K2000D, on the other hand, has 292.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 780M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K2000D is a workstation one.

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 780M SLI
GeForce GTX 780M SLI
NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
Quadro K2000D

Other comparisons

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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 17 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 780M SLI or Quadro K2000D, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.