Quadro T1000 vs Quadro K2000M

Place in the ranking	816	324
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	no data
Power efficiency	3.27	23.04
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK107	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 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	no data
Core clock speed	745 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.84	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.5722 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	32	no data

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)	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	no data
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 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)	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	+	-
CUDA	+	-

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

Quadro T1000 16.79
+541%

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

Quadro T1000 6468
+540%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K2000M 3074

Quadro T1000 33874
+1002%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

K2000M 2616

Quadro T1000 30130
+1052%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

K2000M 2385

Quadro T1000 34236
+1335%

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

−509%

140−150
+509%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.53

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
−500%

30−33

+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −515%	80−85 +515%
Hitman 3	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −519%	130−140 +519%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −536%	70−75 +536%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −532%	240−250 +532%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −515%	80−85 +515%
Hitman 3	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −519%	130−140 +519%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −536%	70−75 +536%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −515%	80−85 +515%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −532%	240−250 +532%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −500%	30−33 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −515%	80−85 +515%
Hitman 3	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −519%	130−140 +519%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −536%	70−75 +536%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −515%	80−85 +515%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −532%	240−250 +532%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−483%

35−40

+483%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Hitman 3	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −471%	40−45 +471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −533%	95−100 +533%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−483%

35−40

+483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−500%

24−27

+500%

This is how K2000M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 509% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.62	16.79
Recency	1 June 2012	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro T1000 has a 540.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.

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