H3C XG310 vs Quadro K2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking817not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.31no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameN14P-Q3DG1
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)11 November 2020 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 speed745 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1550 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate23.8474.40
Floating-point processing power0.5722 gflops2.381 gflops
ROPs1624
TMUs3248

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeDDR3LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s68.26 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 June 2012 11 November 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 300 Watt

K2000M has 445.5% lower power consumption.

H3C XG310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K2000M and H3C XG310. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation card while H3C XG310 is a desktop one.


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 K2000M
Quadro K2000M
Intel H3C XG310
H3C XG310

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.


3.7 32 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 7 votes

Rate H3C XG310 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.