Quadro K2000 vs GeForce GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 outperforms K2000 by a whopping 602% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 193 | 688 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.87 | 0.36 |
| Power efficiency | 12.06 | 5.56 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 has 2919% better value for money than Quadro K2000.
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 | 2048 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.6 | 30.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.981 TFLOPS | 0.7327 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 202 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 91
+658%
| 12−14
−658%
|
| 1440p | 50
+614%
| 7−8
−614%
|
| 4K | 39
+680%
| 5−6
−680%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.03 | 49.92 |
| 1440p | 10.98 | 85.57 |
| 4K | 14.08 | 119.80 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 69
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+617%
|
12−14
−617%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+740%
|
10−11
−740%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 77
+670%
|
10−11
−670%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 253
+623%
|
35−40
−623%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+617%
|
18−20
−617%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+717%
|
12−14
−717%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 130
+622%
|
18−20
−622%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 83
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 64
+611%
|
9−10
−611%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230
+667%
|
30−33
−667%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+617%
|
18−20
−617%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+717%
|
12−14
−717%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+614%
|
14−16
−614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+633%
|
18−20
−633%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+617%
|
18−20
−617%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+614%
|
14−16
−614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+667%
|
6−7
−667%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 110−120
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+683%
|
6−7
−683%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+717%
|
18−20
−717%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+650%
|
8−9
−650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+622%
|
9−10
−622%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 150−160
+648%
|
21−24
−648%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 140−150
+706%
|
18−20
−706%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
This is how GTX 980 and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 658% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 is 614% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 is 680% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.78 | 4.10 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 1 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 51 Watt |
GTX 980 has a 602% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has 223.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
