Quadro P2000 Mobile vs K6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K6000 with Quadro P2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Quadro K6000 outperforms P2000 Mobile by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 245 | 300 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.01 | 3.38 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GP107GL |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (10 years ago) | 5 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,265 | no data |
| Current price | $429 (0.1x MSRP) | $1477 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro K6000 has 255% better value for money than P2000 Mobile.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2880 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1468 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 216.5 | 77.14 |
| Floating-point performance | 5,196 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro K6000 and Quadro P2000 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
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 | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 96.13 GB/s |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 6.1 |
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 | 20.85 | 16.94 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 5 July 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro K6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K6000 is a workstation card while Quadro P2000 Mobile 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
