GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M are two end-of-life mobile and workstation GPUs from different NVIDIA generations. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro K2000 holding a significant edge in raw compute, but the comparison is nuanced by architectural differences and application targets. The Quadro K2000 is a 28 nm Kepler part designed for professional workstations, while the GT 635M is a 40 nm Fermi chip intended for mainstream laptops. Benchmark results indicate the Quadro K2000 wins the only shared test, but the GT 635M may still be relevant for specific legacy use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740. This places the Quadro K2000 in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 22nd percentile for the GT 635M.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2000 in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 versus the GT 635M’s 3740, resulting in an 8.9% delta. This is the only head-to-head benchmark data available, and the Quadro K2000 wins it.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Quadro K2000 in terms of performance?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (avg score 3957, 0.2% slower), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg score 3956, 0.2% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (avg score 3953, 0.3% slower). The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.3% faster with a score of 3977.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 635M support Vulkan?

A: No, the GT 635M has a null value for Vulkan API support. In contrast, the Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan version 1.2.175 and also has a geekbench_vulkan score of 4191.

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

A: The Quadro K2000 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s using GDDR5 memory, while the GT 635M has 28.80 GB/s using DDR3. Both have 2 GB memory and a 128-bit bus width.

Q: Which chip has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro K2000’s GK107 chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the GT 635M’s GF108 chip has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 10.8M / mm² for the Quadro versus 5.0M / mm² for the GT.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from distinct NVIDIA microarchitectures, which explains much of their performance divergence. The Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce GT 635M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF108 chip, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. This process node difference is critical: the 28 nm node allows the Quadro K2000 to pack 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, achieving a density of 10.8M transistors per square millimeter. The GT 635M, with only 585 million transistors on a similar 116 mm² die, has a density of just 5.0M / mm².

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro K2000 features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GT 635M is much leaner, with only 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This 4x difference in shading units and 2x in TMUs directly translates to raw throughput advantages for the Quadro. The pixel rate for the Quadro K2000 is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s for the GT 635M, and the texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 performance tells the same story: 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 182.4 GFLOPS for the GT 635M.

Memory architecture also sets them apart. The Quadro K2000 uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 635M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding only 28.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB capacity and a 128-bit bus, but the memory type and clock differences make the Quadro more than twice as fast in bandwidth. API support shows another gap: while both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, only the Quadro K2000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support. The GT 635M has no Vulkan support listed.

Physical and power characteristics differ as well, reflecting their intended use cases. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card with a 51 W TDP, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU, and has no power connectors. The GT 635M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 35 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, as it is designed for portable devices. The Quadro K2000 has a length of 202 mm (8 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GT 635M has no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GT is "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the geekbench_opencl test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740. This is an 8.9% delta in favor of the Quadro K2000, which is the sole winner in the head-to-head data (winsA: 1, winsB: 0). This margin is notable but not overwhelming; it places the Quadro K2000 just 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and AMD Radeon R5 M420 in its nearest rival group, both of which score around 3957-3956.

For the GT 635M, the 3740 OpenCL score puts it 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717), and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694). However, it is 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710, which scores 3792. The Quadro K2000 also has additional benchmark data beyond OpenCL: it scores 3630 in geekbench_metal and 4191 in geekbench_vulkan. The GT 635M has no equivalent Metal or Vulkan scores listed, so the Quadro’s 4191 Vulkan result stands as an untested advantage for the GT 635M.

The 8.9% OpenCL delta translates to real-world implications for compute-heavy tasks. A workload that takes 100 seconds on the GT 635M would take approximately 91.8 seconds on the Quadro K2000. While this is a meaningful improvement, it is not a generational leap. The Quadro K2000’s advantage is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs 182.4 GFLOPS), but the benchmark gap is smaller than the theoretical compute gap would suggest, likely due to driver optimizations and workload characteristics. The data indicates that in OpenCL, the Quadro K2000 performs like a mid-range mobile GPU, sitting between the GT 745M (3953) and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field, reflecting their different generations and market positions. The process node is a clear divider: the Quadro K2000 uses 28 nm, while the GT 635M uses 40 nm. Transistor counts follow suit, with the Quadro at 1,270 million versus 585 million for the GT 635M. Die size is similar (118 mm² vs 116 mm²), but transistor density is more than double for the Quadro (10.8M / mm² vs 5.0M / mm²).

Compute units show the largest gaps. The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 1.900 GPixel/s for the GT, and texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS. Memory differs in type and speed: GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro versus DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the GT, resulting in bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB capacity and 128-bit bus width.

Power and form factor also differ. The Quadro K2000 has a 51 W TDP, is single-slot, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. The GT 635M has a 35 W TDP, is classified as IGP, and has no suggested PSU. The Quadro has physical dimensions (202 mm length, 111 mm height) and specific display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the GT has no dimensions and relies on "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and have no power connectors.

API support is mostly aligned: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K2000 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 635M has no Vulkan support. The Quadro also has a geekbench_vulkan score of 4191 and geekbench_metal score of 3630, neither of which the GT 635M has. Release dates differ: the Quadro K2000 launched on 2013-02-28, and the GT 635M launched on 2012-03-21. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GT 635M has no listed launch MSRP. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the Quadro follows Quadro Fermi and precedes Quadro Maxwell, while the GT follows GeForce 500M and precedes GeForce 700M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, taking the geekbench_opencl test with 4071 versus 3740 for the GT 635M. This gives it a clear edge in OpenCL compute workloads. The Quadro also wins on every theoretical specification: higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 1.900 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 7.600 GTexel/s), and 4x the FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs 182.4 GFLOPS). Its memory bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) makes it better suited for bandwidth-intensive tasks. The Quadro’s support for Vulkan 1.2.175 and its geekbench_vulkan score of 4191 indicate it can handle modern graphics APIs, which the GT 635M cannot. Its desktop form factor with DVI and DisplayPort outputs makes it a viable option for fixed workstations.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M has no benchmark wins in the direct comparison, but it holds advantages in certain areas. It has a lower TDP at 35 W versus 51 W, making it more power-efficient for mobile applications. As an IGP, it is designed for portability, with no physical dimensions or PSU requirements, whereas the Quadro K2000 requires a 250 W PSU and a single-slot space. The GT 635M’s nearest rival performance (0.6% ahead of the GeForce GT 740M) shows it is competitive within its own mobile segment, even if it trails the Quadro. Its earlier release date (2012-03-21) and predecessor (GeForce 500M) suggest it fits a different product cycle. For users with legacy systems that cannot accommodate a discrete card, the GT 635M’s integrated nature is a practical advantage.

The data does not show any test where the GT 635M outperforms the Quadro K2000. The Quadro wins the sole head-to-head benchmark and leads in all architectural specifications. However, the GT 635M’s lower power draw and mobile integration make it the only choice for certain portable devices, even if performance is lower.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the superior GPU in raw performance. It wins the only head-to-head test, the geekbench_opencl benchmark, with a score of 4071 versus 3740 for the GT 635M, an 8.9% margin. Its architectural advantages are overwhelming, 384 shading units versus 96, 732.7 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS, and 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s. For any compute-focused application using OpenCL, the Quadro K2000 is the clear choice.

The Quadro K2000 also offers broader API support, including Vulkan 1.2.175, which the GT 635M lacks entirely. Its desktop form factor with DVI and DisplayPort outputs makes it suitable for professional multi-monitor setups. The 599 USD launch MSRP reflects its workstation positioning, though it is end-of-life. The GT 635M, by contrast, is a 35 W IGP with no Vulkan support and nearly a quarter of the FP32 performance. Its only advantages are lower power consumption and mobile integration, which matter only in portable device contexts.

Who should pick the Quadro K2000? Anyone needing a discrete GPU for OpenCL compute, legacy workstation tasks, or Vulkan-capable graphics on a desktop system. Its 24th percentile ranking and nearest rival scores (within 0.3% of the GT 745M and 830M) show it still holds its own against later mobile parts. Who should pick the GT 635M? Only those constrained to a portable device with no discrete GPU option, where its 35 W TDP and IGP form factor are necessary. Its 22nd percentile ranking and lack of Vulkan support make it a poor choice for modern workloads, but it remains functional for basic OpenCL tasks. The data-driven verdict is simple: the Quadro K2000 wins on performance, features, and capability. The GT 635M wins only on power efficiency and portability.