Quadro K2000 vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.

RTX 5000 Mobile
2019
16 GB GDDR6, 110 Watt
36.19
+781%

RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms K2000 by a whopping 781% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking134693
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.43
Power efficiency22.705.56
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTU104GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date27 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.

no data

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 cores3072384
Core clock speed1035 MHz954 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,600 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rate296.630.53
Floating-point processing power9.492 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs19232
Tensor Cores384no data
Ray Tracing Cores48no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data202 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s64 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x 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.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA7.53.0

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 HD131
+836%
14−16
−836%
1440p83
+822%
9−10
−822%
4K52
+940%
5−6
−940%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data42.79
1440pno data66.56
4Kno data119.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+825%
8−9
−825%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+863%
8−9
−863%
Elden Ring 120−130
+793%
14−16
−793%

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
+863%
8−9
−863%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+856%
18−20
−856%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+878%
9−10
−878%
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
+863%
8−9
−863%
Dota 2 33
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Elden Ring 120−130
+793%
14−16
−793%
Far Cry 5 77
+863%
8−9
−863%
Fortnite 160−170
+800%
18−20
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+856%
18−20
−856%
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
+863%
8−9
−863%
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%
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%
Elden Ring 70−75
+800%
8−9
−800%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+843%
7−8
−843%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+872%
18−20
−872%
Red Dead Redemption 2 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%
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
+930%
10−11
−930%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+789%
9−10
−789%
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%
Elden Ring 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+886%
7−8
−886%
Metro Exodus 37
+825%
4−5
−825%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+867%
12−14
−867%
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%
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 36.19 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 780.5% 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.

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 RTX 5000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000

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.


4.3 36 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 215 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.