Quadro 2000 vs Quadro K5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5000 and Quadro 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K5000
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
10.36
+323%

K5000 outperforms 2000 by a whopping 323% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking440837
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.640.14
Power efficiency5.832.71
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date17 August 2012 (12 years ago)24 December 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K5000 has 357% better value for money than Quadro 2000.

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 cores1536192
Core clock speed706 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt62 Watt
Texture fill rate90.3720.00
Floating-point processing power2.169 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12832

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 2.0 x16
Length267 mm178 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s41.6 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, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.02.1

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.

Quadro K5000 10.36
+323%
Quadro 2000 2.45

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 K5000 3991
+322%
Quadro 2000 946

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 K5000 11459
+195%
Quadro 2000 3884

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K5000 37
+208%
Quadro 2000 12

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 10.36 2.45
Recency 17 August 2012 24 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 62 Watt

Quadro K5000 has a 322.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 96.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 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 K5000
Quadro K5000
NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000

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.


3.8 96 votes

Rate Quadro K5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 313 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 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.