GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, if lopsided, head-to-head picture. Across the two shared tests, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 takes both victories, leaving the GeForce 920MX without a single win. The most decisive margin comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4191 against the 920MX’s 2987. That is a delta of -28.7% from the 920MX’s perspective, meaning the Quadro outperforms it by a substantial margin. This is not a narrow edge; it is a wide gulf in graphics API performance that suggests the older professional card retains significant muscle in this specific workload.

The other shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, is far closer. The Quadro K2000 edges out the 920MX with a score of 4071 to 4068, a delta of just -0.1%. This near-tie is remarkable given the architectural differences between the two. It indicates that in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, the two GPUs are effectively interchangeable in raw output, with the 920MX matching the Quadro almost exactly despite its lower overall standing in the wider GPU landscape. The data shows that the 920MX’s advantage, if any, lies in parity on this specific workload, not in superiority.

Looking at the averages, the Quadro K2000’s overall benchmark score of 3964 places it ahead of the 920MX’s 3528. This 436-point gap is consistent with the Vulkan result, reinforcing that the Quadro is the stronger performer on aggregate. The 920MX’s percentile rank of 21 versus the Quadro’s 24 further underscores this, with the Quadro sitting higher relative to all other GPUs. For the 920MX, its nearest rival in terms of average score is the GeForce GT 545 at 3594, a delta of -1.8%, meaning the 920MX is slightly behind that card. The Quadro K2000, meanwhile, sits near the GeForce 830M at 3957, a delta of only 0.2% in the Quadro’s favor, showing it is firmly in a higher performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload type. The Quadro K2000 wins decisively in Vulkan, a modern, low-overhead graphics API. The score of 4191 is not just a win; it is a dominant one, suggesting the Quadro’s architecture is better suited to the draw-call-heavy and multi-threaded nature of Vulkan applications. For users running games or 3D applications that utilize Vulkan, the Quadro K2000 is clearly the superior choice based on this metric. The 28.7% gap is too large to ignore, and it points to a fundamental advantage in how the Quadro handles this API’s workload.

The 920MX finds its footing in OpenCL, where its score of 4068 nearly matches the Quadro’s 4071. This is a win in the sense of parity, the 920MX, despite being a lower-tier mobile chip, holds its own in compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. For general-purpose GPU computing, video encoding, or other OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the 920MX is not at a disadvantage. However, it does not win outright; it merely ties. The Quadro K2000 also leads in the average benchmark score, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 3630 for the Quadro, a test the 920MX does not have data for. That Metal result, while not directly comparable, contributes to the Quadro’s higher overall standing.

In terms of use cases, the Quadro K2000 is the pick for Vulkan-centric workloads where its 28.7% lead translates into tangible performance gains. The 920MX is viable for OpenCL-based tasks where the 0.1% delta means users will see no practical difference. The data implies that the 920MX is not a slouch in compute, but the Quadro K2000 is the more versatile performer across the board. The wins for the Quadro are in the modern API and the aggregate score; the 920MX’s only claim is a dead heat in a single legacy API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations, which explains much of the performance split. The GeForce 920MX is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The Quadro K2000, in contrast, uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The Quadro K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the 920MX has 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die. This gives the 920MX a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² versus the Quadro’s 10.8M per mm². The smaller die and higher density for the 920MX suggest a more modern, efficient design, but the Quadro makes up for it with raw resources. The Quadro has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This 50% advantage in shading units and 100% advantage in ROPs for the Quadro is a key reason for its higher pixel rate and texture rate, though the numbers are close: the 920MX has a pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 7.632 GPixel/s, but the Quadro leads in texture rate at 30.53 GTexel/s against 23.83 GTexel/s.

Memory is another major differentiator. The 920MX uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, over four times the bandwidth. The memory clock also differs, with the 920MX at 1800 Mbps effective and the Quadro at 4 Gbps effective. This bandwidth advantage is crucial for the Quadro’s Vulkan performance, as it allows faster data movement for textures and geometry. The Quadro also has a higher FP32 throughput at 732.7 GFLOPS versus the 920MX’s 508.4 GFLOPS, reinforcing its compute lead.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The 920MX is a 16 W part designed for portable devices, with an MXM module slot and no power connectors. The Quadro K2000 is a 51 W single-slot card that is 202 mm long and 111 mm tall, requiring a suggested 250 W PSU. The bus interface also differs: the 920MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the 920MX, whereas the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan support varies: the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This newer API version for the 920MX does not translate to better Vulkan performance, as the data shows the opposite.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a higher average benchmark score of 3964, compared to the GeForce 920MX’s 3528, a difference of 436 points.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: They are nearly identical. The Quadro K2000 scores 4071 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the 920MX scores 4068, a delta of just -0.1% favoring the Quadro.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between them?

A: The biggest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4191 versus the 920MX’s 2987, a delta of -28.7% from the 920MX’s perspective.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, while the GeForce 920MX has 256, giving the Quadro a 50% advantage in this resource.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type?

A: No. The 920MX uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Quadro K2000 was released on 2013-02-28, while the GeForce 920MX came later on 2016-03-24. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 920MX | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Chip | GM108S | GK107 |

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

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 118 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 965 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 993 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 1800 Mbps effective | 4 Gbps effective |

| 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 | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.944 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.83 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 508.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 16 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

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

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

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

| Release Date | 2016-03-24 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 599 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K2000 as the stronger GPU for most tasks. Its 28.7% lead in Vulkan performance is a decisive factor for anyone using modern graphics APIs. The Quadro also has a higher average benchmark score (3964 versus 3528) and sits at a higher percentile rank (24 versus 21). For workloads that rely on Vulkan, the choice is clear: the Quadro K2000 delivers significantly better results.

However, the 920MX is not without merit. In OpenCL, the 0.1% delta means the two are effectively tied, so users focused on OpenCL compute will see no practical difference. The 920MX also offers a lower TDP of 16 W versus 51 W, making it far more power-efficient for portable devices, and it is built on a smaller, denser die. Its newer Vulkan 1.4 support suggests better API compliance, even if performance is lower.

Who should pick which? Users running Vulkan-based applications or needing the Quadro’s higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS) should opt for the Quadro K2000. Its 128-bit GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Conversely, the 920MX is the choice for OpenCL-centric tasks where power efficiency and portability matter more than raw graphics performance, and where the near-parity in OpenCL scores makes the lower-power part attractive. The Quadro K2000 wins on performance; the 920MX wins on efficiency and specific compute parity.