Arc A310 vs Quadro K2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
3.74

A310 outperforms K2000 by a whopping 244% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking753422
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.18no data
Power efficiency5.6813.27
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 March 2013 (12 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

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 cores384768
Core clock speed954 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5364.00
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cache32 KB1.1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB

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 4.0 x8
Length202 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s124.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA3.0-
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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 K2000 3.74
Arc A310 12.85
+244%

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 K2000 1581
Samples: 1780
Arc A310 5438
+244%
Samples: 51

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 HD10−12
−270%
37
+270%

Cost per frame, $

1080p59.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 42
+0%
42
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 22
+0%
22
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how Quadro K2000 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 270% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.74 12.85
Recency 1 March 2013 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro K2000 has 47.1% lower power consumption.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has a 243.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A310 is a desktop 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 K2000
Quadro K2000
Intel Arc A310
Arc A310

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.


3.6 256 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 290 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2000 or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.