NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are two very different products that happen to share a manufacturer and a 28 nm process node. One is a Maxwell-based mobile IGP aimed at thin laptops; the other is a Kepler-based desktop workstation card with a 250 W suggested PSU. Benchmark results show they land in nearly the same performance tier, with the 830M edging ahead in the one test both share.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has an average benchmark score of 3957, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. That places the 830M 10.3% ahead of the K2000D in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test (4324 vs 3919).

Q: How do these two compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 830M sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) and 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964). The K2000D is 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s — more than four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher theoretical FP32 performance?

A: The Quadro K2000D reaches 732.7 GFLOPS, whereas the GeForce 830M reaches 588.8 GFLOPS. The K2000D is about 24% higher in raw floating-point throughput despite losing the benchmark test.

Q: What are the power and form factor differences?

A: The 830M has a 33 W TDP and is listed as IGP (integrated graphics), with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The K2000D has a 51 W TDP, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which API versions do they support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan: the 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000D supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from distinct NVIDIA architectures. The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip based on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 1,270 million transistors on a larger 118 mm² die, giving a lower density of 10.8M per mm².

The execution resources differ substantially. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly 50% more shading units and double the TMUs and ROPs. This explains why the K2000D achieves higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 18.40 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs 588.8 GFLOPS). However, the 830M has a higher pixel rate at 9.200 GPixel/s compared to the K2000D's 7.632 GPixel/s, despite fewer ROPs — a result of the Maxwell architecture's higher clocks.

Clock behavior also differs. The 830M has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The K2000D lists no base or boost clock in the data, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The 830M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The K2000D compensates with a wider 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5, while the 830M is limited to a 64-bit DDR3 interface.

The two also differ in bus interface and generation. The 830M is part of the GeForce 800M generation, uses PCIe 3.0 x8, and succeeds the GeForce 700M while preceding the GeForce 900M. The K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, uses PCIe 2.0 x16, and succeeds Quadro Fermi while preceding Quadro Maxwell. Both are marked end-of-life, with the 830M releasing on 2014-03-11 and the K2000D on 2013-02-28.

The Verdict

For raw compute density, the Quadro K2000D is the stronger silicon. Its 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 performance exceed the 830M's 256 shaders, 16 TMUs, and 588.8 GFLOPS. The K2000D also offers 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s, a 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, and GDDR5 versus DDR3. These are meaningful for workstation-style workloads that stress memory throughput and multi-sample shading.

However, the benchmark data tells a different story for general compute. In the only head-to-head test available (Geekbench OpenCL), the GeForce 830M wins with 4324 against 3919 — a 10.3% advantage. The 830M also has a higher average benchmark score (3957 vs 3919) and a slightly better percentile ranking (24th vs 23rd percentile among all GPUs). The 830M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (deltaPct 0), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (0.2% ahead) — all essentially tied. The K2000D's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (0.3% behind) and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (0.9% behind).

Who should pick which? The K2000D makes sense for users who need a single-slot, desktop workstation card with dual DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs, a 250 W suggested PSU, and the higher FP32 ceiling. The 830M is the better choice for low-power (33 W TDP) mobile implementations where the IGP form factor and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface fit, and where the measured OpenCL performance is actually higher. The data shows the 830M wins the benchmark, but the K2000D wins on specification breadth — the pick depends on whether the workload is closer to the synthetic OpenCL test or to the theoretical throughput advantages.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

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

| Chip | GM108 | GK107 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

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

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

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | null |

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

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

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

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

| Vulkan API | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | null | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | null | 599 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 4324, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. The delta is 10.3% in favor of the 830M, giving it the only win in the head-to-head comparison (winsA: 1, winsB: 0).

This result is notable because the K2000D has superior theoretical specs. With 384 shading units versus 256, 32 TMUs versus 16, and 732.7 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS, the K2000D should mathematically outperform the 830M in compute-heavy tasks. Yet the OpenCL test shows the opposite. The 830M's higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs 7.632 GPixel/s) and its newer Maxwell architecture likely contribute to this result. The 830M also has a boost clock of 1150 MHz, while the K2000D has no listed boost clock, suggesting clock behavior may favor the mobile chip.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The 830M averages 3957 across all its benchmarks (OpenCL 4324 and Vulkan 3590), while the K2000D averages 3919 from its single OpenCL result. The 830M's Vulkan score of 3590 is only available for the 830M — the K2000D has no Vulkan benchmark listed, likely due to its older Vulkan 1.2.175 support versus the 830M's Vulkan 1.4.

Looking at nearest rivals, the 830M's 3957 average puts it between the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964 (deltaPct -0.2) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (deltaPct 0.1). The K2000D's 3919 average sits between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3930 (deltaPct -0.3) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3898 (deltaPct 0.5). Both cards are firmly in the same performance class, with the 830M holding a consistent edge in the measured tests.

The practical takeaway from the benchmark data is that the 830M, despite being a lower-power mobile part, delivers better OpenCL performance than the K2000D in this specific test. The K2000D's advantages remain in bandwidth, texture throughput, and raw FP32, but those do not translate into a benchmark win here. For users who rely solely on the measured scores, the 830M is the faster GPU; for those who need the K2000D's workstation connectivity and higher theoretical ceilings, the specs may matter more than the one available data point.