Iris Plus Graphics 640 vs Quadro K2000
Aggregate performance score
Quadro K2000 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 652 | 666 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.32 | 0.71 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Kaby Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
| Current price | $550 (0.9x MSRP) | $669 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Iris Plus Graphics 640 has 122% better value for money than Quadro K2000.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 | 52.80 |
| Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro K2000 and Iris Plus Graphics 640 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Length | 202 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.103 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 K2000 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro K2000 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 6% in Passmark.
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 | 24−27
+0%
| 24
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.08 | 3.85 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 15 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K2000 and Iris Plus Graphics 640.
Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook 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.
