Quadro K2000 vs Radeon Pro 560X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.

Pro 560X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.53
+133%

Pro 560X outperforms K2000 by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking458685
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.36
Power efficiency8.805.55
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date16 July 2018 (6 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 cores1024384
Core clock speed1004 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rate64.2630.53
Floating-point processing power2.056 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs6432

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 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data202 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 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

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-3.0

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.

Pro 560X 9.53
+133%
Quadro K2000 4.09

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.

Pro 560X 3677
+133%
Quadro K2000 1580

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.

Pro 560X 17555
+343%
Quadro K2000 3959

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.

Pro 560X 17037
+315%
Quadro K2000 4101

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 HD38
+138%
16−18
−138%
1440p27
+170%
10−12
−170%
4K17
+143%
7−8
−143%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data37.44
1440pno data59.90
4Kno data85.57

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+158%
12−14
−158%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Battlefield 5 49
+133%
21−24
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 29
+142%
12−14
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 28
+133%
12−14
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
+138%
16−18
−138%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+137%
27−30
−137%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Metro Exodus 41
+156%
16−18
−156%
Red Dead Redemption 2 36
+157%
14−16
−157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 57
+138%
24−27
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+158%
24−27
−158%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50
+138%
21−24
−138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Battlefield 5 42
+133%
18−20
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+150%
10−11
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 26
+160%
10−11
−160%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
+133%
12−14
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+137%
27−30
−137%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Metro Exodus 33
+136%
14−16
−136%
Red Dead Redemption 2 29
+142%
12−14
−142%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+158%
24−27
−158%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
+157%
7−8
−157%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 19
+138%
8−9
−138%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+157%
14−16
−157%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+152%
21−24
−152%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+150%
8−9
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+158%
24−27
−158%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+150%
10−11
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Hitman 3 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+167%
6−7
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how Pro 560X and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:

  • Pro 560X is 138% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 560X is 170% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 560X is 143% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.53 4.09
Recency 16 July 2018 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 51 Watt

Pro 560X has a 133% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has 47.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 560X
Radeon Pro 560X
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 177 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 212 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.