Quadro P3200 Max-Q vs Quadro K2000M

Place in the ranking	816	225
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	no data
Power efficiency	3.32	22.71
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	GP104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 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 cores	384	1792
Core clock speed	745 MHz	1139 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1404 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.84	157.2
Floating-point processing power	0.5722 TFLOPS	5.032 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	112

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 size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1753 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	168.3 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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

No 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 3D 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	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

K2000M 2.62

P3200 Max-Q 24.47
+834%

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.

K2000M 1010

P3200 Max-Q 9440
+835%

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

−813%

210−220
+813%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.53

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
−800%

45−50

+800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Hitman 3	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −805%	190−200 +805%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −821%	350−400 +821%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Hitman 3	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −805%	190−200 +805%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −821%	350−400 +821%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Hitman 3	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −805%	190−200 +805%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −821%	350−400 +821%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−817%

55−60

+817%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Hitman 3	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −833%	140−150 +833%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−817%

55−60

+817%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−775%

35−40

+775%

This is how K2000M and P3200 Max-Q compete in popular games:

P3200 Max-Q is 813% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.62	24.47
Recency	1 June 2012	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt

K2000M has 36.4% lower power consumption.

P3200 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 834% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P3200 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.