Quadro K2000M vs Quadro P5000

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P5000 with Quadro K2000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P5000
2016
16 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
28.28
+1151%

P5000 outperforms K2000M by a whopping 1151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking178834
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.660.39
Power efficiency12.473.26
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGP104GK107
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 $265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Quadro P5000 has 1608% 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 cores2048384
Core clock speed1607 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1733 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate277.323.84
Floating-point processing power8.873 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs16032

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount16 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1127 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus++
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA6.1+

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.

Quadro P5000 28.28
+1151%
K2000M 2.26

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 P5000 12636
+1151%
K2000M 1010

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 P5000 52973
+1593%
K2000M 3129

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro P5000 56385
+2055%
K2000M 2616

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro P5000 45153
+1793%
K2000M 2385

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 HD93
+272%
25
−272%
4K41
+1267%
3−4
−1267%

Cost per frame, $

1080p26.87
−153%
10.61
+153%
4K60.95
+45.1%
88.42
−45.1%
  • K2000M has 153% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Quadro P5000 has 45% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+3420%
5−6
−3420%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+1600%
4−5
−1600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1325%
8−9
−1325%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+3420%
5−6
−3420%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Far Cry 5 100−105
+2400%
4−5
−2400%
Fortnite 140−150
+1067%
12−14
−1067%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+900%
12−14
−900%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+2325%
4−5
−2325%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+1600%
4−5
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+917%
12−14
−917%
Valorant 190−200
+349%
40−45
−349%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1325%
8−9
−1325%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+3420%
5−6
−3420%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+335%
63
−335%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Dota 2 130−140
+440%
24−27
−440%
Far Cry 5 100−105
+2400%
4−5
−2400%
Fortnite 140−150
+1067%
12−14
−1067%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+900%
12−14
−900%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+2325%
4−5
−2325%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+1683%
6−7
−1683%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+1600%
4−5
−1600%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+917%
12−14
−917%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 98
+1125%
8−9
−1125%
Valorant 190−200
+349%
40−45
−349%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1325%
8−9
−1325%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Dota 2 130−140
+440%
24−27
−440%
Far Cry 5 100−105
+2400%
4−5
−2400%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+900%
12−14
−900%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+1600%
4−5
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+917%
12−14
−917%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+563%
8−9
−563%
Valorant 190−200
+349%
40−45
−349%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150
+1067%
12−14
−1067%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+1078%
18−20
−1078%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+5800%
1−2
−5800%
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+695%
21−24
−695%
Valorant 230−240
+945%
21−24
−945%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+1267%
6−7
−1267%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1700%
4−5
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+1283%
6−7
−1283%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+307%
14−16
−307%
Hogwarts Legacy 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Valorant 180−190
+1433%
12−14
−1433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1500%
3−4
−1500%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Dota 2 90−95
+1467%
6−7
−1467%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Hogwarts Legacy 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%

This is how Quadro P5000 and K2000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P5000 is 272% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P5000 is 1267% faster in 4K

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 5800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P5000 surpassed K2000M in all 57 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.28 2.26
Recency 1 October 2016 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 55 Watt

Quadro P5000 has a 1151.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

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

The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation card while Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation one.

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 P5000
Quadro P5000
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.


3.6 183 votes

Rate Quadro P5000 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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P5000 or Quadro K2000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.