Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro K5000M

Place in the ranking	540	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.47	no data
Power efficiency	5.03	23.83
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK104	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 August 2012 (12 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$329.99	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	1344	1024
Core clock speed	601 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.31	114.2
Floating-point processing power	1.615 TFLOPS	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	64

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	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16

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	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	750 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	128.0 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	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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

T2000 Mobile 20.77
+185%

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

T2000 Mobile 7985
+185%

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

T2000 Mobile 13524
+176%

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

−178%

150−160
+178%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.11

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Elden Ring	20−22 −230%	65−70 +230%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −195%	55−60 +195%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −124%	45−50 +124%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Elden Ring	20−22 −230%	65−70 +230%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −113%	65−70 +113%
Fortnite	40−45 −153%	100−110 +153%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −195%	55−60 +195%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −134%	130−140 +134%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −124%	45−50 +124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −200%	65−70 +200%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%
World of Tanks	110−120 −111%	230−240 +111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −113%	65−70 +113%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −134%	130−140 +134%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%
Elden Ring	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −325%	30−35 +325%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −341%	170−180 +341%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −217%	18−20 +217%
World of Tanks	50−55 −164%	140−150 +164%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −223%	40−45 +223%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −240%	16−18 +240%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −280%	55−60 +280%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −286%	50−55 +286%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −327%	45−50 +327%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −222%	27−30 +222%
Valorant	18−20 −184%	50−55 +184%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Dota 2	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Elden Ring	4−5 −275%	14−16 +275%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −400%	14−16 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −195%	60−65 +195%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
Fortnite	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −288%	30−35 +288%
Valorant	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%

This is how K5000M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 178% faster in 1080p

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 1600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed K5000M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.30	20.77
Recency	7 August 2012	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 184.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000M in performance tests.

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