Quadro K2000 vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms K2000 by a whopping 780% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 135 | 695 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.44 |
| Power efficiency | 22.66 | 5.56 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 3072 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 30.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 0.7327 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 192 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 202 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 64 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 3.0 |
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 | 131
+836%
| 14−16
−836%
|
| 1440p | 83
+822%
| 9−10
−822%
|
| 4K | 52
+940%
| 5−6
−940%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 42.79 |
| 1440p | no data | 66.56 |
| 4K | no data | 119.80 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+825%
|
8−9
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105
+900%
|
10−11
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+825%
|
8−9
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+856%
|
18−20
−856%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+780%
|
10−11
−780%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 113
+842%
|
12−14
−842%
|
| Valorant | 200
+852%
|
21−24
−852%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105
+900%
|
10−11
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+825%
|
8−9
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+863%
|
8−9
−863%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+800%
|
18−20
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+856%
|
18−20
−856%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+858%
|
12−14
−858%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+824%
|
21−24
−824%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 71
+788%
|
8−9
−788%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+800%
|
14−16
−800%
|
| Valorant | 130
+829%
|
14−16
−829%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+830%
|
30−33
−830%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105
+900%
|
10−11
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+825%
|
8−9
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+820%
|
10−11
−820%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+856%
|
18−20
−856%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+824%
|
21−24
−824%
|
| Valorant | 181
+906%
|
18−20
−906%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 44
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+858%
|
24−27
−858%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+871%
|
7−8
−871%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+867%
|
12−14
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+920%
|
10−11
−920%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+900%
|
6−7
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+888%
|
8−9
−888%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Valorant | 129
+821%
|
14−16
−821%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+858%
|
12−14
−858%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+900%
|
5−6
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 69
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 836% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 822% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 940% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.15 | 4.11 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 1 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 51 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 779.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has 115.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K2000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
