GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce 825M represent two very different interpretations of NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, yet benchmark data shows they land surprisingly close in overall compute performance. The Quadro K2000, a professional workstation card from 2013, edges out the newer GeForce 825M mobile chip in the only head-to-head benchmark available, but the story is more nuanced than a single score suggests. The K2000 achieves an average benchmark score of 3964 across three tests, while the 825M manages 3694 in its single OpenCL result, a 10.2% gap that places both firmly in the lower quartile of all GPUs, with the K2000 at the 24th percentile and the 825M at the 22nd.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a clear but limited picture: the Quadro K2000 wins the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4071 against the 825M's 3694. That 10.2% advantage reflects the K2000's broader test coverage, it also posts scores of 3630 in Geekbench Metal and 4191 in Geekbench Vulkan, demonstrating consistent performance across multiple compute APIs. The 825M has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results, meaning its 3694 OpenCL score stands as its sole data point.

Where the 825M might claim a practical win is in physical footprint and power draw. The 825M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 33 W TDP, while the K2000 is a single-slot card drawing 51 W. For a portable device, the 825M's lower power envelope is a significant advantage, even if the benchmark scores don't reflect it. The K2000, conversely, wins on interface breadth, it offers dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus DVI, whereas the 825M's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the user's laptop dictates connectivity.

The K2000 also wins on memory capacity outright: 2 GB of GDDR5 versus 1024 MB of DDR3. That doubles the frame buffer and uses faster memory, though the 825M's lower bandwidth (14.40 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s) suggests the K2000 is far better equipped for texture-heavy workloads. For compute tasks, the K2000's additional benchmark results indicate it can handle a wider range of API-accelerated workloads without issue.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs trace their lineage to the Kepler architecture, but they are not identical implementations. The K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die. The 825M uses the smaller GK208 chip, also on 28 nm, with 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the 825M achieves 11.7 million transistors per mm² versus the K2000's 10.8 million, indicating a more tightly packed design despite fewer total transistors.

The shading core counts are identical, both have 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, but the render output stage differs. The K2000 has 16 ROPs, while the 825M has only 8. This halving of ROPs likely explains why the K2000's pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s slightly exceeds the 825M's 7.528 GPixel/s despite the 825M's higher boost clock of 941 MHz versus the K2000's unspecified base and boost clocks. The K2000's memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus produces 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 825M's 900 MHz DDR3 on a 64-bit bus yields just 14.40 GB/s, a 4.4x gap that cannot be overcome by clock speed alone.

Architecturally, the K2000 is classified under the "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)" generation, while the 825M belongs to "Kepler 2.0" in the "GeForce 800M" family. This generational distinction suggests the 825M benefits from later design refinements, such as the PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the K2000's PCIe 2.0 x16. However, the API support is identical: both offer DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected given their 2013-2014 release timeframe.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the Quadro K2000 winning decisively. The K2000 scores 4071, while the GeForce 825M scores 3694, a delta of 10.2%. This result aligns with the K2000's average benchmark score of 3964, which sits just 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and 0.2% above the AMD Radeon R5 M420, per its nearest rivals list. The 825M's average of 3694 places it 0.6% below the GeForce GT 740M and 0.6% below the Quadro 3000M, while running 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 and 1.2% behind the GeForce GT 635M.

Looking at the K2000's broader benchmark suite, its Vulkan score of 4191 is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the card responds well to Vulkan's lower overhead. The Metal score of 3630 is the weakest of the three, indicating that Apple's Metal API may not extract the full potential from this Kepler chip. For the 825M, the absence of Metal and Vulkan results means we cannot assess its cross-API consistency, the OpenCL score of 3694 stands alone, and given its nearest rivals cluster within a 1.2% band, this result appears representative of its general compute ability.

The ROP difference between the two cards is worth emphasizing in the context of these scores. With 16 ROPs, the K2000 can complete rasterization tasks more efficiently than the 825M's 8 ROPs, which may contribute to its higher OpenCL performance. Yet the 825M compensates with a higher boost clock (941 MHz vs the K2000's unspecified clocks), and its FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS is remarkably close to the K2000's 732.7 GFLOPS, a mere 1.4% difference. The texture rates tell a similar story: 30.53 GTexel/s for the K2000 versus 30.11 GTexel/s for the 825M, a 1.4% gap. The pixel rates are even closer at 7.632 versus 7.528 GPixel/s. These near-identical compute metrics suggest the 10.2% OpenCL gap stems from memory bandwidth and ROP count rather than raw shader performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce 825M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This is a 4.4x difference.

Q: Are these cards the same architecture?

A: Both use NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, but the K2000 is based on the GK107 chip while the 825M uses GK208, which NVIDIA labels as "Kepler 2.0." The 825M has a higher transistor density at 11.7M / mm² versus the K2000's 10.8M / mm².

Q: What is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The K2000 scores 4071 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the 825M's 3694, giving the K2000 a 10.2% lead. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3. The K2000 also has a wider 128-bit memory bus versus the 825M's 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 825M has a 33 W TDP and is an IGP with no suggested PSU listed. The 825M is designed for portable devices, while the K2000 is a single-slot card requiring no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads: the Quadro K2000, which leads by 10.2% in OpenCL and offers a full suite of benchmark results across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth makes it far more capable for texture-intensive applications, and its dual DisplayPort outputs give it workstation-grade connectivity. The K2000's 24th percentile ranking places it slightly above the 825M's 22nd percentile, a marginal but consistent advantage.

However, the GeForce 825M wins on efficiency and form factor. At 33 W, it draws 35% less power than the K2000's 51 W, and as an IGP, it requires no expansion slot or external power connectors. For a laptop user who needs basic compute capability without the bulk of a discrete card, the 825M is the practical choice, its 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 performance is within 1.4% of the K2000's 732.7 GFLOPS, meaning raw math throughput is nearly identical. The 825M's 30.11 GTexel/s texture rate also closely matches the K2000's 30.53 GTexel/s.

The deciding factor is memory. The K2000's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the 825M's 14.40 GB/s is not a marginal difference, it fundamentally changes what workloads are feasible. The K2000 also doubles the frame buffer, which matters for larger textures or compute buffers. The 825M's nearest rivals (GeForce GT 740M at 3717, Quadro 3000M at 3718) all cluster within 1.2% of its score, reinforcing that it is a mid-pack mobile chip. The K2000's rivals (GeForce 830M at 3957, Radeon R5 M420 at 3956) similarly cluster within 0.3%, showing that both cards sit in tightly contested performance tiers.

For professional work requiring multiple display outputs, higher memory bandwidth, or sustained compute under load, the Quadro K2000 is the data-backed choice. For portable devices where power draw and physical size matter more than raw bandwidth, the GeForce 825M offers comparable FP32 throughput at two-thirds the TDP. The 825M's 14.40 GB/s bandwidth is a hard constraint, though, any workload that moves significant data will bottleneck. The K2000's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is the clear differentiator, and it shows in the 10.2% OpenCL lead. Choose the K2000 if memory throughput matters; choose the 825M if integration and efficiency matter more.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK107 | GK208 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 941 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 900M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not specified |