NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are both end-of-life mobile and professional graphics solutions built on 28 nm TSMC process technology, but they target different segments and deliver contrasting performance profiles. The data shows a split decision across the two shared benchmark tests, with each card claiming a victory in one discipline.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the GeForce 930M’s commanding 23.9% lead over the Quadro K2000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The 930M scores 5046 points against the K2000’s 4071, a margin that places the mobile Maxwell part firmly ahead in compute-oriented workloads. This is a notable outcome given that the Quadro K2000 is a professional workstation card, typically optimized for stability and certification rather than raw throughput. The 930M’s advantage in OpenCL likely stems from its newer Maxwell architecture, which delivers higher instruction-level efficiency per clock compared to the older Kepler design.

However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro K2000 wins with a score of 4191 against the 930M’s 3729, a delta of -11% from the 930M’s perspective. This 462-point gap suggests that the K2000’s driver stack and hardware implementation handle Vulkan’s low-level API more effectively. The K2000’s victory here is significant because Vulkan is a modern, cross-platform graphics API that benefits from robust memory bandwidth and higher fill rates—two areas where the K2000 excels on paper. The K2000 also posts a Geekbench Metal score of 3630, a test the 930M did not undergo, further indicating its broader API coverage.

When contextualized against their respective peer groups, the two cards sit in similar tiers but with different strengths. The 930M’s average benchmark score of 4388 places it at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, scoring 4411—a negligible 0.5% difference. The 930M also edges out the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.2%, though the latter is an unusual comparison given the massive generational gap. The Quadro K2000, meanwhile, averages 3964 and sits at the 24th percentile, with its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, scoring 3957 (0.2% delta). The K2000 also trades blows with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (0.2% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (0.3% ahead), while trailing the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.3%.

Net-net, the head-to-head benchmarks show a balanced rivalry: the 930M wins OpenCL by a wide margin, while the K2000 wins Vulkan by a solid but smaller margin. The average scores reinforce this, with the 930M holding a 424-point advantage overall, but the K2000’s Vulkan performance suggests it is not outclassed in all scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M is significantly faster, scoring 5046 versus the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 23.9% difference in favor of the 930M.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000 beat the 930M in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the K2000 scores 4191 against the 930M’s 3729, giving the K2000 an 11% lead.

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

A: The 930M’s average score of 4388 is 0.5% behind the GeForce GT 645M (4411) and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360). The K2000’s average of 3964 is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce 830M (3957) and 0.2% ahead of the Radeon R5 M420 (3956).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a 64.00 GB/s bandwidth using 128-bit GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce 930M has 12.80 GB/s via a 64-bit DDR3 interface—a 5x difference favoring the K2000.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The K2000 leads in both: 7.632 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s for the 930M, and 30.53 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000 only supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different NVIDIA architectures, which explains their divergent performance characteristics. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Maxwell was designed to improve performance-per-watt and computational efficiency over its predecessor, Kepler. The chip packs 1,020 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter—a high concentration for its era.

In contrast, the Quadro K2000 relies on the GK107 chip, part of the Kepler architecture, also manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm node. Kepler was NVIDIA’s first architecture to emphasize shader core scaling and introduced a more modular design. The GK107 die is larger at 118 mm² and contains 1,270 million transistors, but its density is lower at 10.8 million per square millimeter. The extra transistors and larger die give the K2000 more physical resources, including additional texture mapping units (32 versus 24) and render output units (16 versus 8).

Both cards feature 384 shading units, but their execution efficiency differs. Maxwell’s design improved instruction scheduling and reduced power leakage, allowing the 930M to achieve a higher FP32 throughput of 421.6 GFLOPS despite its lower base clock of 549 MHz. The K2000, with its higher clock potential (memory clocked at 1000 MHz, though core clocks are not listed), reaches 732.7 GFLOPS FP32, a 74% advantage. This raw compute advantage is somewhat offset by the 930M’s superior per-clock efficiency in certain workloads, as evidenced by its OpenCL win.

Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, indicating a more modern driver foundation for the Maxwell part. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, so API-level compatibility is broadly similar.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal sharp contrasts in memory and interface design. The GeForce 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 12.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000 also has 2 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s—exactly five times the bandwidth. This difference is critical for high-resolution textures and multi-sample anti-aliasing, where the K2000’s superior memory subsystem shines.

The K2000’s fill rates are substantially higher: its pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s against the 930M’s 4.392 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. These numbers align with the K2000’s higher TMU and ROP counts, making it better suited for geometry-heavy or fill-limited rendering.

Power and physical design also diverge. The 930M has a TDP of 33 W and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, designed to be portable-device dependent for display outputs. The K2000 draws 51 W, is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and outputs via 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The K2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, though neither card requires external power. The bus interface differs as well: the 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16—the latter offering more lanes but an older standard.

Release timing separates the two by roughly two years: the K2000 launched on 2013-02-28, while the 930M arrived on 2015-03-12. The K2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the 930M has no listed MSRP, reflecting its mobile OEM nature. The K2000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the 930M’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two GPUs with distinct roles. The GeForce 930M is the compute-oriented winner, taking the OpenCL benchmark by 23.9% and posting a higher average benchmark score (4388 versus 3964). Its Maxwell architecture delivers better efficiency and a more modern Vulkan 1.4 implementation, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute and newer API adoption. Its lower 33 W TDP also suggests it is better suited for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is a constraint.

The Quadro K2000, however, is the rendering specialist. Its Vulkan win (4191 versus 3729) and overwhelming advantages in memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s), pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s), and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s) make it the superior option for graphics-heavy workloads that depend on fill rates and memory throughput. The K2000’s professional-grade display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort) and single-slot form factor also point to workstation use, where multi-monitor setups and certified drivers are paramount.

For buyers, the choice hinges on workload. If the priority is compute performance, API versatility, and lower power consumption, the 930M’s OpenCL dominance and 10.7% higher average score make it the pick. If the task involves high-resolution rendering, heavy texture sampling, or Vulkan-based applications, the K2000’s bandwidth and fill-rate supremacy justify its professional pedigree. The two cards split their head-to-head tests 1-1, so neither is a universal victor—the 930M leads in raw compute, the K2000 in graphics throughput.