Quadro K2000D vs Radeon R9 380

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro K2000D, including specs and performance data.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.90
+287%

R9 380 outperforms K2000D by a whopping 287% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking339687
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.030.36
Power efficiency5.825.60
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAntiguaGK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 380 has 2408% better value for money than K2000D.

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 cores1792384
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data954 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rate108.630.53
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length221 mm202 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
Mantle+-
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.

R9 380 15.90
+287%
K2000D 4.11

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.

R9 380 6134
+287%
K2000D 1586

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 HD68
+325%
16−18
−325%
4K25
+317%
6−7
−317%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.9337.44
4K7.9699.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+300%
9−10
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+330%
10−11
−330%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+325%
24−27
−325%
Hitman 3 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+344%
18−20
−344%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+300%
9−10
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+330%
10−11
−330%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+325%
24−27
−325%
Hitman 3 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+344%
18−20
−344%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100
+317%
24−27
−317%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+300%
9−10
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+325%
24−27
−325%
Hitman 3 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+344%
18−20
−344%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+333%
12−14
−333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+329%
7−8
−329%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+300%
21−24
−300%
Hitman 3 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+314%
7−8
−314%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+304%
24−27
−304%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Hitman 3 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+344%
18−20
−344%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+375%
4−5
−375%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

This is how R9 380 and K2000D compete in popular games:

  • R9 380 is 325% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 317% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.90 4.11
Recency 18 June 2015 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 51 Watt

R9 380 has a 286.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K2000D, on the other hand, has 272.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000D 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 R9 380
Radeon R9 380
NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
Quadro K2000D

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.


4.1 795 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D 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.