Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro K2000D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2000D and Radeon PRO W7700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
PRO W7700 outperforms K2000D by a whopping 1324% 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 | 757 | 52 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.18 | 31.22 |
| Power efficiency | 5.80 | 22.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (13 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7700 has 17244% better value for money than K2000D.
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
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.
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 | 3.84 | 54.68 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 13 November 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 51 Watt | 190 Watt |
K2000D has 273% lower power consumption.
PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 1324% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
