Quadro K610M vs Quadro 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000 with Quadro K610M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 2000
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 62 Watt
2.12
+34.2%

2000 outperforms K610M by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking854936
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.150.22
Power efficiency2.714.18
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGF106GK208
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date24 December 2010 (14 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $229.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

Quadro K610M has 47% better value for money than Quadro 2000.

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 cores192192
Core clock speed625 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0015.68
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS0.3763 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3216

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length178 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s20.8 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA2.1+

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.

Quadro 2000 2.12
+34.2%
Quadro K610M 1.58

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.

Quadro 2000 947
+34.1%
Quadro K610M 706

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.

Quadro 2000 3880
+94.5%
Quadro K610M 1995

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 HD16−18
+33.3%
12
−33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p37.44
−95.3%
19.17
+95.3%
  • Quadro K610M has 95% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro 2000 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000 is 33% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.12 1.58
Recency 24 December 2010 23 July 2013
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 30 Watt

Quadro 2000 has a 34.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 106.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation card while Quadro K610M is a mobile 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 Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000
NVIDIA Quadro K610M
Quadro K610M

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.


3.4 320 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 28 votes

Rate Quadro K610M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 2000 or Quadro K610M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.