NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX as the clearly stronger performer in this head-to-head comparison. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the 940MX wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 4939 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 17.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 4749 against 4191, an 11.7% margin. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the 940MX sits at 4844, while the Quadro K2000 averages 3964. The percentile ranking also favors the newer card: the 940MX lands at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile.

For users choosing between these two, the data points in one direction. The GeForce 940MX is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. It also draws less power: 23 W versus 51 W for the Quadro K2000. The 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture and a newer generation, GeForce 900M, both of which contribute to its efficiency and higher FP32 throughput. The Quadro K2000, meanwhile, offers a wider memory bus (128 bit versus 64 bit) and higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s), but its compute scores lag. The recorded data shows no benchmark test where the Quadro K2000 wins. Therefore, the 940MX is the default recommendation for general-purpose GPU tasks, with the Quadro K2000 only relevant in scenarios that specifically demand its memory bandwidth or display outputs, which are not reflected in these compute benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has an average benchmark score of 4844. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. The 940MX ranks at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000 ranks at the 24th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GeForce 940MX in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The 940MX scores 4939 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K2000 scores 4071. That is a 17.6% lead for the 940MX.

Q: What about Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The 940MX again leads, scoring 4749 against the Quadro K2000’s 4191. The margin here is 11.7%.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes. The Quadro K2000 has a 128-bit memory bus and bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The GeForce 940MX has a 64-bit bus and bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The GeForce 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W. The 940MX is the more power-efficient option.

Q: What are the typical form factors?

A: The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The GeForce 940MX is an MXM module, with dimensions not recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA GPUs belong to different architecture generations. The Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip. The GeForce 940MX is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but they differ significantly in physical construction.

The Kepler chip in the Quadro K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The Maxwell chip in the GeForce 940MX is larger and denser: it contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6 million per mm². This architectural shift from Kepler to Maxwell is the primary driver behind the 940MX’s higher compute output per watt.

In terms of compute resources, the 940MX has more shading units: 512 versus 384 for the Quadro K2000. Both cards have 32 TMUs, but the ROP count differs: the Quadro K2000 has 16 ROPs, while the 940MX has only 8. The clock speeds also differ. The Quadro K2000 does not have a listed base or boost clock, while the 940MX runs at a base of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro runs its GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), and the 940MX at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The 940MX supports a newer Vulkan version, listed as 1.4, while the Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both are pre-RTX.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key fields. The process node is identical (28 nm TSMC), but the transistor count, die size, and density all favor the 940MX. The 940MX has 512 shading units versus 384, and it shows a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz, while the Quadro K2000 has no listed base or boost in the data.

Memory configuration splits them: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus widths are different. The Quadro K2000 uses a 128-bit bus, the 940MX uses a 64-bit bus. Consequently, bandwidth is higher on the Quadro: 64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s. The memory clock is also higher on the 940MX: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Compute rates differ. The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32, while the Quadro K2000 delivers 732.7 GFLOPS. Pixel rates are similar: the Quadro is at 7.632 GPixel/s, the 940MX at 6.888 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 30.53 GTexel/s for the Quadro and 27.55 GTexel/s for the 940MX. The TDP is 51 W for the Quadro and 23 W for the 940MX. The bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 940MX. Power connectors are none for both, but the Quadro lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, which the 940MX does not. Display outputs: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 940MX is labeled as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared tests, and the GeForce 940MX wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The 940MX scores 4939, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071. The delta is 17.6% in favor of the 940MX. The second is Geekbench Vulkan. The 940MX scores 4749, the Quadro K2000 scores 4191, a margin of 11.7%.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The 940MX averages 4844, while the Quadro K2000 averages 3964. That is a difference of 880 points, or roughly 22% higher for the 940MX. The percentile rankings also reflect this: the 940MX is in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, the Quadro K2000 in the 24th.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card puts the numbers in context. The Quadro K2000’s closest peers are the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (avg score 3957, delta 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, delta 0.3%), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, delta -0.3%). These margins are tiny, meaning the Quadro K2000 sits right at the pack of mobile and low-end desktop parts from its era. The 940MX, by contrast, is close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, delta -1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, delta 1.1%). The last entry is an outlier, but the other three rivals are similar to the 940MX’s performance level. The data indicates the 940MX operates roughly one tier higher than the Quadro K2000 in raw compute.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the GeForce 940MX is the outright winner in compute performance. It wins both available tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with margins of 17.6% and 11.7% respectively. It also has a higher FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS), more shading units (512 versus 384), and a lower TDP (23 W versus 51 W). The 940MX is the choice for OpenCL acceleration, Vulkan rendering, or any task that relies on raw shader compute. Its higher average score and percentile rank also suggest it will perform better across a broader set of applications, even those not directly benchmarked.

The Quadro K2000 does have a few areas where it holds a technical edge, but none that translate into benchmark wins. It has a wider memory bus (128 bit versus 64 bit), which gives it double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s). In memory-bound workloads such as certain texture-heavy rendering or video processing, that higher bandwidth can be useful. It also has more ROPs (16 versus 8) and a higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s). Its texture rate is slightly higher (30.53 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s). The Quadro also offers dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) versus the 940MX’s portable-device-dependent setup, which matters for workstation setups with multiple monitors.

Still, the recorded benchmark scores show zero wins for the Quadro K2000 in head-to-head tests. The only scenarios where the Quadro may be preferable are those that are not captured in these compute benchmarks: memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks or professional display configurations. For any user measuring performance through OpenCL or Vulkan, the data is unambiguous: the GeForce 940MX outperforms the Quadro K2000 by a meaningful margin, and it does so while consuming less than half the power. The Quadro K2000 remains a functional entry-level workstation card, but its compute performance is a full step behind the 940MX in this comparison.