Quadro K2000M vs Quadro K5000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5000M and Quadro K2000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K5000M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.30
+178%

K5000M outperforms K2000M by a whopping 178% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking539818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.480.39
Power efficiency5.043.30
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329.99 $265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K5000M has 536% better value for money than K2000M.

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 cores1344384
Core clock speed601 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate67.3123.84
Floating-point processing power1.615 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed750 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s28.8 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 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
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.

K5000M 7.30
+178%
K2000M 2.63

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.

K5000M 2806
+178%
K2000M 1010

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K5000M 4893
+172%
K2000M 1798

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K5000M 20139
+153%
K2000M 7947

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

K5000M 2798
+167%
K2000M 1046

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

K5000M 23061
+163%
K2000M 8766

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.

K5000M 5107
+66.1%
K2000M 3074

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

K5000M 47
+179%
K2000M 17

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.

K5000M 26
+189%
K2000M 9

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 HD54
+125%
24
−125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.11
+80.9%
11.05
−80.9%
  • K5000M has 81% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Elden Ring 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Valorant 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Dota 2 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Elden Ring 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+113%
14−16
−113%
Fortnite 40−45
+207%
14−16
−207%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+136%
24−27
−136%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Valorant 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
World of Tanks 110−120
+77.8%
63
−77.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Dota 2 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+113%
14−16
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+136%
24−27
−136%
Valorant 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Elden Ring 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+117%
18−20
−117%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
World of Tanks 50−55
+194%
18−20
−194%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Valorant 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Elden Ring 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Fortnite 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Valorant 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

This is how K5000M and K2000M compete in popular games:

  • K5000M is 125% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K5000M is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, K5000M surpassed K2000M in all 52 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.30 2.63
Recency 7 August 2012 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 55 Watt

K5000M has a 177.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K2000M, on the other hand, has 81.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5000M 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.

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 K5000M
Quadro K5000M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

Other comparisons

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.


4.3 87 votes

Rate Quadro K5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 35 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M 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.