NVIDIA GeForce 920M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 across the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the GeForce 920M's 3725, a 9.3% advantage. This margin is meaningful for compute-oriented workloads, indicating that the older professional card sustains a solid lead in general-purpose GPU compute despite its age.

The gap widens dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Quadro K2000 posts a score of 4191, while the GeForce 920M trails at 2849. That is a 47.1% difference in favor of the Quadro K2000. Vulkan performance often reflects driver efficiency and architectural maturity, and the data suggests the Quadro's driver stack and Kepler design handle the lower-level API far more effectively than the newer mobile chip. This is not a marginal difference; it is a near-50% swing that would be visible in any Vulkan-based application or game.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K2000's average benchmark score is 3964, which places it at the 24th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (average 3957, a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (average 3956, also 0.2% behind). The Quadro also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.3% behind) but falls slightly behind the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, a -0.3% delta). These margins are tiny, meaning the Quadro K2000 sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-tier mobile and older desktop parts.

The GeForce 920M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3287, landing at the 20th percentile. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316, a -0.9% delta), meaning the 920M actually performs 0.9% worse than that card. It trails the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, -1.4%) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, -3%), but it beats the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3210, a 2.4% delta in its favor). The 920M is clearly lower in the hierarchy, and the 677-point average gap between the two cards (3964 vs 3287) translates to a roughly 20.6% overall performance deficit for the 920M in the database's aggregated metrics.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share a 28 nm process node and are fabricated by TSMC, but their underlying chips differ in meaningful ways. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip, part of the original Kepler architecture, while the GeForce 920M uses the GK208B chip, labeled as Kepler 2.0. The GK107 integrates 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The GK208B is smaller and leaner: 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, giving a higher density of 11.7 million per square millimeter. This density increase suggests a more compact design, but it comes with trade-offs in memory and ROP configuration.

The shading unit and texture unit counts are identical: both have 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. However, the ROP count differs: the Quadro K2000 has 16 ROPs, while the GeForce 920M has only 8. Despite this halving of ROPs, both cards achieve the same pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s. This is curious; the equal pixel rate likely stems from the 920M's higher base clock of 954 MHz compensating for fewer ROPs, but the K2000's clock data is not recorded in the database. The texture rates are also identical at 30.53 GTexel/s, and both deliver the same FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS.

Memory is where the two diverge starkly. The Quadro K2000 pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s at a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GeForce 920M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and a bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which is enormous and likely explains part of its Vulkan and OpenCL superiority. The 920M's narrow memory bus and slower memory type are severe bottlenecks for any bandwidth-sensitive workload.

The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 51 W TDP, and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The GeForce 920M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 33 W TDP and no power connector requirement, as it draws from the laptop's system power. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 920M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 920M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, scoring 4071 versus the GeForce 920M's 3725, a 9.3% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 4191 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce 920M scores 2849. This is a 47.1% difference in favor of the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units and 32 TMUs. They also share identical pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (732.7 GFLOPS).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GeForce 920M has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro's bandwidth is over 4 times higher.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Quadro K2000 has an average score of 3964, compared to 3287 for the GeForce 920M. The Quadro also sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 920M's 20th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GeForce 920M wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (OpenCL and Vulkan), the Quadro K2000 wins both, capturing 2 wins to 0 for the 920M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several core specifications. The chip is GK107 for the Quadro K2000 versus GK208B for the GeForce 920M, with the former using the original Kepler architecture and the latter using Kepler 2.0. Transistor counts are 1,270 million versus 1,020 million, and die sizes are 118 mm² versus 87 mm², yielding transistor densities of 10.8M / mm² and 11.7M / mm² respectively. The Quadro has 16 ROPs; the 920M has 8. The Quadro's memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 920M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory type differs: GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bus width is 128-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. TDP is 51 W for the Quadro versus 33 W for the 920M. The Quadro is single-slot; the 920M is IGP. The Quadro has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the 920M has none listed. Bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro versus portable-device-dependent outputs for the 920M. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the 920M has no recorded launch MSRP.

The cards share the same DirectX support (12 (11_0)), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.2.175), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (2 GB), shading units (384), TMUs (32), pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and power connector requirement (none).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in Vulkan, where the 47.1% lead indicates superior driver-level optimization or architectural efficiency for low-level graphics APIs. The OpenCL 9.3% win also shows it is the better choice for compute tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU processing. The massive memory bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) suggests the Quadro will excel in texture-heavy rendering, larger framebuffer operations, and any workload that streams data quickly. Its 16 ROPs, double the 920M's count, likely aid in fill-rate-bound scenarios, even though the pixel rates are equal on paper.

The GeForce 920M offers no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only advantages are qualitative: lower TDP (33 W versus 51 W), integrated form factor (IGP), PCIe 3.0 support (though on an x8 link), and portability since it is designed for laptops. For a user prioritizing power efficiency and compactness, the 920M is the lighter option, but the performance data shows it is not competitive with the Quadro in any measured metric.

For professional workloads like CAD, scientific visualization, or compute acceleration, the Quadro K2000 is the clear winner based on the recorded scores. For casual mobile use or low-power embedded scenarios, the 920M may suffice, but the database's average scores (3964 versus 3287) and the 920M's negative deltas against several rivals (e.g., -1.4% against Intel HD Graphics 530) indicate it is a weak performer even in its own class.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 920M in every shared benchmark, with a 9.3% OpenCL lead and a 47.1% Vulkan lead. The Quadro's higher average score (3964 vs 3287), superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s), doubled ROP count, and larger die with more transistors all point to a more capable part. The Quadro also holds a better percentile rank (24th versus 20th) among all GPUs.

Who should pick the Quadro K2000? Anyone prioritizing raw compute, Vulkan-based graphics, or memory-intensive tasks. Its single-slot design, standard display outputs, and 599 USD launch MSRP (the only listed price in the data) position it as a professional workstation card. It is end-of-life, but its benchmark scores remain competitive with much newer mobile parts.

Who should pick the GeForce 920M? Users who need an integrated, low-power solution at 33 W with no external power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs. It is also end-of-life, and its predecessor is GeForce 800M with a successor in GeForce 10 Mobile. But the performance data consistently favors the Quadro, making the 920M a poor choice for any task where benchmark scores matter. If the choice is between these two for an application that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro K2000 wins decisively, and the 920M's only real merits are its lower power draw and integrated nature.