Quadro K2000M vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with Quadro K2000M, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms K2000M by a whopping 1151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 178 | 834 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.66 | 0.39 |
| Power efficiency | 12.47 | 3.26 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 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 cores | 2048 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 23.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 32 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 28.8 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no 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.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 93
+272%
| 25
−272%
|
| 4K | 41
+1267%
| 3−4
−1267%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87
−153%
| 10.61
+153%
|
| 4K | 60.95
+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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
