NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins the only shared benchmark, and it does so convincingly. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 940MX scores 4,939 against the Quadro K2000D’s 3,919, a 20.7% gap in favor of the newer mobile part. That is a decisive margin for any comparison, and it means the 940MX is the stronger compute performer in this pairing.

The Quadro K2000D, however, is not without its own territory. It was built for professional workstation duties, and its feature set reflects that: dual DVI outputs plus a mini-DisplayPort 1.2, a single-slot design, and a 250 W suggested power supply. The 940MX, by contrast, is a portable device dependent output, meaning it has no fixed display configuration of its own. For a desktop workstation with multiple monitors, the K2000D’s output flexibility is a practical advantage that benchmark scores do not capture.

In terms of where each wins, the 940MX takes the compute crown outright, while the K2000D wins on connectivity and form factor for fixed desktop deployments. The 940MX’s 23 W TDP also makes it far more mobile-friendly, but the K2000D’s 51 W TDP is still modest for a desktop card, and its single-slot profile fits neatly into compact workstation chassis.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but they come from different architectural generations. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip, part of NVIDIA’s Kepler family, while the GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip from the Maxwell architecture. This is a generational leap on the same process node, and the data shows what that means in practice.

The transistor counts differ significantly: the K2000D packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm² for the Kepler part versus 12.6 million per mm² for Maxwell. The Maxwell chip is larger and denser, which is a strong hint of why its compute performance is higher.

The shader configurations also differ. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. The 940MX’s advantage in shading units is offset by a halved ROP count, which affects pixel throughput. Indeed, the pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000D versus 6.888 GPixel/s for the 940MX, and the texture rates are close: 30.53 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s.

Memory is another differentiator. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K2000D uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses a 64-bit bus with only 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro’s wider bus is a clear advantage for memory-heavy workloads, even though the 940MX runs its memory at a higher effective speed (5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps).

The 940MX also has explicit clock figures in the database: a base of 795 MHz and a boost of 861 MHz. The K2000D’s clocks are not recorded, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The 940MX supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K2000D is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 940MX lists Vulkan 1.4 support versus the K2000D’s Vulkan 1.2.175.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark recorded is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The GeForce 940MX posts 4,939 points, while the Quadro K2000D manages 3,919. That is a 20.7% deficit for the Quadro, which is a substantial margin in any compute comparison. The 940MX also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4,749, but the K2000D has no recorded Vulkan result to compare against, so the OpenCL test is the sole head-to-head data point.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card adds context. The K2000D’s closest competitor is the Quadro 2000D at 3,930, which is only 0.3% higher, meaning the K2000D is essentially tied with its immediate predecessor. The GeForce GT 745M scores 3,953, 0.9% higher, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3,883, 0.9% lower. The K2000D sits in a tight cluster of similar performers.

The 940MX, by contrast, sits in a slightly higher performance band. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 560M at 4,855, just 0.2% lower, followed by the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX at 4,867 (0.5% lower) and the GeForce GTS 450 at 4,893 (1.0% lower). Interestingly, the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB appears in the list at 4,791, which is 1.1% lower than the 940MX, though that likely reflects the specific OpenCL workload rather than any real-world hierarchy.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap: the K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 940MX sits at the 28th. That is a meaningful difference in the overall distribution, even if both are mid-to-low tier by modern standards.

The Verdict

The data suggests a straightforward choice for compute-heavy tasks: the GeForce 940MX is the stronger performer. Its 20.7% lead in OpenCL is decisive, and its higher shader count and newer Maxwell architecture back that up. The 940MX also has a significantly lower TDP at 23 W versus 51 W, making it more efficient per watt, though the database does not record a direct efficiency metric.

However, the Quadro K2000D is not without merits. Its 128-bit memory bus delivers 64.00 GB/s, which is 60% more bandwidth than the 940MX’s 40.10 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, the K2000D could hold its own despite the compute deficit. Its dual DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it a practical choice for multi-monitor workstation setups, and its single-slot design is a plus for dense desktop environments.

Who should pick which? If the task is general-purpose compute, OpenCL acceleration, or anything that stresses shader throughput, the 940MX is the clear winner. If the task is professional 2D or 3D visualization with multiple displays, or if memory bandwidth is the bottleneck, the K2000D’s wider bus and display flexibility make it a defensible choice. The 940MX is also the more portable option, being an MXM module, while the K2000D is a fixed desktop card.

The K2000D launched at an MSRP of 599 USD, but that is a historical figure; the 940MX has no recorded launch price. Both are end-of-life products, so current availability and pricing are not part of this analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4,939 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919, a 20.7% difference in favor of the 940MX.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro K2000D uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 940MX uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, while the Quadro K2000D has 384. The 940MX also has a higher FP32 throughput at 881.7 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, while the GeForce 940MX has a much lower TDP of 23 W.

Q: Which card offers more display outputs?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GeForce 940MX’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning it has no fixed display configuration.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: No, the Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, while the GeForce 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK107 | GM107 |

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

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 732.7 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 23 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

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

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

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |