Quadro K2000M vs Quadro 2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000M and Quadro K2000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 2000M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.02

K2000M outperforms 2000M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking889818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.280.39
Power efficiency2.533.30
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF106GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date13 January 2011 (14 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$46.56 $265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000M has 39% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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 cores192384
Core clock speed550 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate17.6023.84
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)

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 speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

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+
CUDA2.1+

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. 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.

Quadro 2000M 2.02
K2000M 2.63
+30.2%

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 2000M 778
K2000M 1010
+29.8%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro 2000M 1261
K2000M 1798
+42.6%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro 2000M 6634
K2000M 7947
+19.8%

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 2000M 3414
+11.1%
K2000M 3074

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.

Quadro 2000M 7
K2000M 9
+28.6%

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 HD37
+54.2%
24
−54.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.26
+778%
11.05
−778%
  • Quadro 2000M has 778% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Elden Ring 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Elden Ring 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Fortnite 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
−25%
24−27
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
World of Tanks 35−40
−61.5%
63
+61.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
−25%
24−27
+25%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 2−3
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Valorant 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 1−2
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Fortnite 0−1 1−2
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1

This is how Quadro 2000M and K2000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 2000M is 54% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2000M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K2000M is ahead in 34 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 2.63
Recency 13 January 2011 1 June 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

K2000M has a 30.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.


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 Quadro 2000M
Quadro 2000M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

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.


3.7 95 votes

Rate Quadro 2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 35 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.