Tesla K40c vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	296	413
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.64	0.27
Power efficiency	17.39	3.29
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP106	GK180
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	$7,699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2000 has 3470% better value for money than Tesla K40c.

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	1024	2880
Core clock speed	1076 MHz	745 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	876 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	7,080 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	245 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	210.2
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	5.046 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	48
TMUs	64	240

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	201 mm	267 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	5 GB	12 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	288.4 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 Connectors

4x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.1.103
CUDA	6.1	3.5

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.

Quadro P2000 18.90
+61.7%

Tesla K40c 11.69

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 P2000 7268
+61.7%

Tesla K40c 4494

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 P2000 22913
+31.2%

Tesla K40c 17468

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	58 +65.7%	35−40 −65.7%
1440p	20 +66.7%	12−14 −66.7%
4K	17 +70%	10−12 −70%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09 +2081%	219.97 −2081%
1440p	29.25 +2093%	641.58 −2093%
4K	34.41 +2137%	769.90 −2137%

Quadro P2000 has 2081% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Quadro P2000 has 2093% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Quadro P2000 has 2137% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +76.2%	21−24 −76.2%
Elden Ring	60−65 +71.4%	35−40 −71.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +71.4%	35−40 −71.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +76.2%	21−24 −76.2%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +75.6%	45−50 −75.6%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +70%	30−33 −70%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +63%	27−30 −63%
Valorant	75−80 +68.9%	45−50 −68.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +71.4%	35−40 −71.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +76.2%	21−24 −76.2%
Dota 2	34 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Elden Ring	60−65 +71.4%	35−40 −71.4%
Far Cry 5	72 +80%	40−45 −80%
Fortnite	100−110 +68.3%	60−65 −68.3%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +75.6%	45−50 −75.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +67.5%	40−45 −67.5%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +70%	30−33 −70%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 +71.3%	80−85 −71.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +63%	27−30 −63%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +68.6%	35−40 −68.6%
Valorant	75−80 +68.9%	45−50 −68.9%
World of Tanks	220−230 +72.3%	130−140 −72.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +71.4%	35−40 −71.4%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +61.9%	21−24 −61.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +76.2%	21−24 −76.2%
Dota 2	98 +63.3%	60−65 −63.3%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +82.9%	35−40 −82.9%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +75.6%	45−50 −75.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +66.7%	24−27 −66.7%
Valorant	75−80 +68.9%	45−50 −68.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +81.3%	16−18 −81.3%
Elden Ring	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +68%	100−105 −68%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
World of Tanks	120−130 +72%	75−80 −72%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +81%	21−24 −81%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +66.7%	30−33 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +77.8%	27−30 −77.8%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +79.2%	24−27 −79.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +78.6%	14−16 −78.6%
Valorant	45−50 +77.8%	27−30 −77.8%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Dota 2	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%
Elden Ring	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 +62.5%	24−27 −62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +90%	10−11 −90%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +71.4%	14−16 −71.4%
Fortnite	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +75%	16−18 −75%
Valorant	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%

This is how Quadro P2000 and Tesla K40c compete in popular games:

Quadro P2000 is 66% faster in 1080p
Quadro P2000 is 67% faster in 1440p
Quadro P2000 is 70% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.90	11.69
Recency	6 February 2017	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	12 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	245 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 61.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 226.7% lower power consumption.

Tesla K40c, on the other hand, has a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K40c in performance tests.

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