NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life NVIDIA parts built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they arrived two years apart and target entirely different markets: one is a mobile GeForce chip from the 900M generation, the other a Kepler-era professional workstation card from the Quadro Kx000 line. The database places them closer than their segments would suggest, with average benchmark scores of 4388 for the 930M and 3919 for the K2000D, a gap that makes this comparison more competitive than the naming conventions imply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear win for the GeForce 930M. The 930M scores 5046 against 3919 for the Quadro K2000D, a margin of 28.8 percent. That is a substantial gap for two GPUs whose overall percentile placements differ by just three points, 26 for the 930M and 23 for the K2000D.

The 930M also holds a Vulkan result of 3729 in the database, a score that sits below its own OpenCL figure and, notably, within touching distance of the K2000D's OpenCL score of 3919. There is no matching Vulkan entry for the K2000D, so no direct Vulkan comparison is possible, but the recorded data suggests the two cards converge once outside the 930M's strongest test.

Context from the rival tables reinforces how tight the overall standings are. The 930M's average of 4388 sits 0.5 percent behind the GeForce GT 645M (4411), 0.7 percent ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360), 1.2 percent ahead of the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6's recorded entry (4335), and 2.2 percent ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). The K2000D's 3919 average is even more tightly boxed: 0.3 percent behind the Quadro 2000D (3930), 0.9 percent behind the GeForce GT 745M (3953), 0.5 percent ahead of the Quadro 2000 (3898), and 0.9 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883). Both cards operate in a dense cluster where single-digit-percent swings flip rankings.

In the head-to-head tally, the 930M takes the only recorded win, one to zero.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in benchmarks?

A: The GeForce 930M. It leads the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, 5046 to 3919, a 28.8 percent advantage, and holds the higher average benchmark score, 4388 versus 3919.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute against 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M, despite both having 384 shading units. The K2000D's higher quoted rates at equivalent clock behavior account for the difference in the recorded figures.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K2000D, by a wide margin. Its 128-bit GDDR5 setup runs at 4 Gbps effective and delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the 930M's 64-bit DDR3 at 1600 Mbps effective manages 12.80 GB/s, exactly one-fifth of the K2000D's figure.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The 930M was released in March 2015 and the K2000D in February 2013, and each has a successor line: GeForce 10 Mobile for the 930M and Quadro Maxwell for the K2000D.

Q: Do they differ in display connectivity?

A: Yes. The K2000D offers fixed outputs, two DVI ports and one mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the 930M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent, since it is a mobile integrated-package part.

Q: Which API support is broader?

A: The 930M, slightly. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 930M lists Vulkan 1.4 while the K2000D lists Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The 930M's case rests on measured performance and efficiency. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 28.8 percent, posts the higher average score, and does so with a 33 W TDP against the K2000D's 51 W. For OpenCL compute workloads on the recorded data, the 930M is the stronger choice, full stop. Its higher percentile placement, 26 versus 23, and its broader Vulkan support also favor it for general-purpose and newer-API workloads.

The K2000D's advantages are structural rather than score-based. Its memory subsystem is dramatically faster, 64.00 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s, with double the bus width and a wider 16 ROP configuration against the 930M's 8. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s comfortably exceed the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s and 13.18 GTexel/s, and its FP32 figure of 732.7 GFLOPS outstrips the 930M's 421.6 GFLOPS. For memory-bound tasks, high-resolution output driving, and multi-monitor desk setups via its fixed DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs, the K2000D is the better fit. It is also the only one of the two with a documented card form factor, a single-slot 202 mm by 111 mm board with a suggested 250 W system power supply.

The split, then, is straightforward: measured application benchmarks favor the 930M, theoretical throughput and I/O favor the K2000D.

Specification Differences

The two cards share a manufacturer, foundry, process node, shading unit count, memory capacity, and absence of RT or tensor cores, but diverge on nearly everything else.

The memory implementation is the starkest difference. The K2000D pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth; the 930M pairs 2 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus for 12.80 GB/s. Memory clocks are 4 Gbps effective on the K2000D versus 1600 Mbps effective on the 930M.

Texture and rasterization hardware also differs: 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the K2000D versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the 930M. The 930M's graphics clock is 549 MHz with no separate boost figure; the K2000D has no base or boost clock recorded in the database.

Power and packaging diverge along mobile-versus-workstation lines. The 930M is an IGP-class part with a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The K2000D is a single-slot card with a 51 W TDP, no power connectors, a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and a suggested 250 W power supply. The K2000D measures 202 mm long and 111 mm tall; the 930M has no recorded dimensions.

Release timing differs by two years, February 2013 for the K2000D and March 2015 for the 930M, and their lineages differ accordingly: the K2000D followed Quadro Fermi and preceded Quadro Maxwell, while the 930M followed GeForce 800M and preceded GeForce 10 Mobile. The K2000D carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the 930M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap spans one NVIDIA generation. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kx000 generation. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell, part of the GeForce 900M generation.

Both chips are fabbed at TSMC on 28 nm, which makes the density comparison meaningful: the 930M's GM108S packs 1,020 million transistors into 77 mm² for 13.2M per mm², while the K2000D's GK107 carries 1,270 million transistors across 118 mm² for 10.8M per mm². Maxwell's tighter density lets the newer chip do more with a smaller die and fewer transistors, which lines up neatly with the 930M's lower 33 W TDP versus 51 W, and with its benchmark win despite the older card's larger die.

The performance-per-watt story follows directly from the silicon. Kepler in the K2000D leans on a wider memory bus and more rasterization hardware to hit its throughput numbers, while Maxwell in the 930M reaches a higher measured OpenCL score with half the bandwidth, half the ROPs, and two-thirds of the memory performance profile in texturing. Feature support also tilts toward the newer architecture on the API side: the 930M's Vulkan 1.4 support outpaces the K2000D's Vulkan 1.2.175, while DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 are identical between them.

In short, the recorded data shows a classic generational matchup: the older, bigger, bandwidth-rich Kepler workstation card loses the measured benchmark to a smaller, denser, more efficient Maxwell mobile chip, but keeps clear advantages in raw throughput figures and fixed professional-grade display output.