Radeon Pro W6600 vs Quadro K2000D

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000D and Radeon Pro W6600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K2000D
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.12

Pro W6600 outperforms K2000D by a whopping 877% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking691104
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.4270.25
Power efficiency5.5427.59
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGK107Navi 23
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro W6600 has 16626% better value for money than K2000D.

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 cores3841792
Core clock speed954 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2903 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate30.53325.1
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS10.4 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs32112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 x16
Length202 mm241 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s224.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort4x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA3.0-

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. 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.

K2000D 4.12
Pro W6600 40.25
+877%

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.

K2000D 1586
Pro W6600 15508
+878%

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 4.12 40.25
Recency 1 March 2013 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 100 Watt

K2000D has 96.1% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 876.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D 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 K2000D
Quadro K2000D
AMD Radeon Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 14 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 65 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 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.