ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT vs Quadro K2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2000 with Radeon HD 2600 XT, including specs and performance data.
K2000 outperforms ATI HD 2600 XT by a whopping 463% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 739 | 1216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 5.63 | 1.13 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | RV630 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (12 years ago) | 28 June 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro K2000 has 750% better value for money than ATI HD 2600 XT.
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 cores | 384 | 120 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 | 6.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 22.4 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.0 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.77 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 28 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro K2000 has a 462.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 2600 XT, on the other hand, has 13.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 2600 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
