NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M are two very different products that nonetheless land in the same performance tier. The data shows a near-perfect statistical tie in average benchmark scores, with the Quadro K2000 at 3964 and the GeForce 830M at 3957 — a difference of just 0.2%. This makes the choice between them entirely dependent on workload, not raw compute muscle. The benchmarks reveal a clear split: the GeForce 830M dominates in OpenCL compute tasks, while the Quadro K2000 takes a decisive lead in Vulkan graphics workloads. This is not a case of one card being simply better; it is a case of two architectures optimized for different priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M’s victory in the geekbench_opencl test is its primary claim to fame. It scores 4324 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 5.9% advantage. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this result indicates the Maxwell-based 830M handles parallel compute workloads more efficiently. For tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, or any compute-heavy application that leverages OpenCL, the 830M is the stronger performer. This is a notable achievement for a mobile IGP (integrated graphics processor) against a dedicated workstation card.

Conversely, the Quadro K2000 wins decisively in the geekbench_vulkan test, scoring 4191 versus the 830M’s 3590. That is a 16.7% margin, the largest performance gap between the two in any test. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and this result suggests the K2000’s higher texture fill rate and larger memory bus provide a significant advantage in modern graphics rendering workloads. For gaming, CAD viewport work, or any application that uses Vulkan, the Quadro K2000 is clearly the better choice. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, while lower in clock speed, are backed by 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, which outperform the 830M’s 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs in raw throughput.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, but the distribution of wins is lopsided in specific tests. The Quadro K2000’s single Vulkan win is worth more than the 830M’s OpenCL win in terms of percentage difference. The data suggests that if your software stack is Vulkan-centric, the K2000 is the only choice. If your software is OpenCL-centric, the 830M offers a measurable, though modest, speedup.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture, while the GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip on the Maxwell architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The 830M is smaller, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This indicates Maxwell is a more efficient design, packing more logic into less space.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro. This explains the K2000’s Vulkan dominance — high-bandwidth GDDR5 is critical for feeding a GPU’s texture units in modern graphics APIs. The 830M compensates with much higher clocks: its base clock is 1082 MHz and boost clock is 1150 MHz, while the K2000’s base and boost clocks are not even listed in the data, implying they are lower or not publicly specified.

The compute resources also differ. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the 830M achieves higher FP32 performance in OpenCL due to its higher clocks — 588.8 GFLOPS versus the K2000’s 732.7 GFLOPS? No, wait, the K2000 actually has higher FP32 at 732.7 GFLOPS. Yet the 830M scores higher in OpenCL. This suggests the Maxwell architecture’s compute scheduling is more efficient per clock, or the OpenCL test favors the 830M’s driver optimization. The K2000’s raw throughput is higher on paper, but real-world OpenCL results favor the 830M. The K2000’s pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, while the 830M’s is 9.200 GPixel/s, indicating the Maxwell chip’s ROPs are more efficient despite being half as numerous.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, workload-based verdict. For users running Vulkan-based applications — which includes many modern games and professional visualization tools — the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the superior choice. Its 16.7% lead in the geekbench_vulkan test is substantial, and this is backed by its 4.4x memory bandwidth advantage. The K2000 also offers a full suite of display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a functional desktop workstation card.

For users running OpenCL-based compute tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the better performer. Its 5.9% lead in geekbench_opencl is consistent with its higher clock speeds and more modern Maxwell architecture. The 830M also consumes less power, with a 33 W TDP versus the K2000’s 51 W, and it is an IGP, meaning it is built for portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. However, its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it has no fixed desktop connectivity.

The data does not support a universal winner. The Quadro K2000 wins in graphics, the GeForce 830M wins in compute. If you are building a desktop workstation, the K2000 is the only viable option due to its physical form factor and display outputs. If you are using a laptop, the 830M is the only option. The performance tie in average scores (3964 vs 3957) means neither card will leave you at a disadvantage in mixed workloads, but specialized tasks will favor one heavily over the other.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 3964, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 830M’s 3957, a difference of 0.2%.

Q: How much faster is the GeForce 830M in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce 830M scores 4324 in geekbench_opencl, while the Quadro K2000 scores 4071. This gives the 830M a 5.9% advantage.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest gap is in geekbench_vulkan, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4191 versus the GeForce 830M’s 3590, a 16.7% lead for the K2000.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce 830M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which architecture is more transistor-dense?

A: The GeForce 830M’s Maxwell architecture has a density of 13.2M transistors per mm², higher than the Quadro K2000’s Kepler architecture at 10.8M per mm².

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a 51 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GeForce 830M has a 33 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides only two common benchmark results, but they tell a compelling story. In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins with a score of 4324 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071. The deltaPct is -5.9%, meaning the K2000 is 5.9% slower. This is a significant margin in compute terms. The 830M achieves this with 256 shading units and a 64-bit memory bus, whereas the K2000 has 384 shading units and a 128-bit bus. The 830M’s higher clocks (1082 MHz base, 1150 MHz boost) versus the K2000’s unlisted clocks are likely the deciding factor. This result suggests that raw core count is less important than clock speed and architectural efficiency in OpenCL workloads.

In geekbench_vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins decisively with a score of 4191 against the GeForce 830M’s 3590. The deltaPct is 16.7%, meaning the K2000 is 16.7% faster. This is a massive margin in graphics performance. The K2000’s memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is 4.4x higher than the 830M’s 14.40 GB/s, and this is likely the primary reason for its Vulkan dominance. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that heavily utilizes memory bandwidth for texture and buffer access. The K2000’s 32 TMUs also provide double the texture rate of the 830M’s 16 TMUs (30.53 GTexel/s vs 18.40 GTexel/s), further reinforcing its graphics advantage.

The wins are split evenly at one each, but the magnitudes are not equal. The K2000’s 16.7% Vulkan win is nearly three times larger than the 830M’s 5.9% OpenCL win. This asymmetry is important. It means that if you compare the two GPUs on a single metric, the K2000 has a stronger claim to superiority because its winning margin is far larger. However, the 830M’s win in OpenCL is still meaningful for compute-focused users. The average benchmark scores (3964 vs 3957) mask this disparity, so users must look at the individual tests to make an informed decision.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every internal specification. The process node is the same at 28 nm and both are from TSMC, but the chip designs are distinct. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This results in different transistor densities, with the 830M at 13.2M per mm² being denser than the K2000’s 10.8M per mm².

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The K2000 has no listed base or boost clock, while the 830M has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the K2000 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 830M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The memory type and bus width are entirely different, with the K2000 using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus and the 830M using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Consequently, bandwidth is vastly different: 64.00 GB/s for the K2000 versus 14.40 GB/s for the 830M.

The compute resources differ in count. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the K2000 outputs 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the 830M outputs 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is higher on the K2000 at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS on the 830M. Power consumption favors the 830M at 33 W versus the K2000’s 51 W. The K2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 830M is an IGP with no dimensions listed. The K2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the 830M’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175 while the 830M supports Vulkan 1.4. The K2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the 830M has no listed MSRP.