Quadro M2000M vs Quadro K4000

Place in the ranking	556	494
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.61	no data
Power efficiency	6.09	11.24
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GK106	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)	3 December 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,269	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	768	640
Core clock speed	810 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1098 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	51.84	43.92
Floating-point processing power	1.244 TFLOPS	1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	64	40

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1404 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	134.8 GB/s	80 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	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
CUDA	3.0	5.0

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.

Quadro K4000 6.76

M2000M 8.57
+26.8%

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.

Quadro K4000 2723

M2000M 3450
+26.7%

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.

Quadro K4000 6673

M2000M 9790
+46.7%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro K4000 6875

M2000M 9564
+39.1%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro K4000 5210

M2000M 10438
+100%

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	27−30 −29.6%	35 +29.6%
4K	9−10 −33.3%	12 +33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	47.00	no data
4K	141.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30 +0%	30 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

This is how Quadro K4000 and M2000M compete in popular games:

M2000M is 30% faster in 1080p
M2000M is 33% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.76	8.57
Recency	1 March 2013	3 December 2015
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	55 Watt

M2000M has a 26.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 45.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4000 is a workstation card while Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation one.

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