NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 records an average benchmark score of 3964, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 records 3210. The Quadro K2000 sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the GeForce GT 640 sits in the 20th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 3630 in Geekbench Metal, which is 74% higher than the GeForce GT 640's score of 2086. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards across all tested workloads.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the GK107 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have identical transistor counts of 1,270 million and the same die size of 118 mm².

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the types differ. The Quadro K2000 uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce GT 640 uses DDR3 at 891 MHz with 1782 Mbps effective speed and 28.51 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher power consumption rating?

A: The GeForce GT 640 has a TDP of 65 W, while the Quadro K2000 has a lower TDP of 51 W. Both cards require a suggested PSU of 250 W and use no power connectors.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The Quadro K2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% lower), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.3% lower). The GeForce GT 640's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182, 0.9% higher), NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3163, 1.5% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287, 2.3% higher).

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 are built on the same fundamental silicon. The GK107 chip powers both cards, using the Kepler architecture fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 1,270 million, and the die size measures 118 mm² for both, yielding the same transistor density of 10.8M per mm².

The compute core configuration matches exactly as well. Each card features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Kepler generation origins. The pixel rate and texture rate are close but not identical: the Quadro K2000 achieves 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the GeForce GT 640 achieves 7.216 GPixel/s and 28.86 GTexel/s. Floating point performance follows the same pattern, with the Quadro K2000 delivering 732.7 GFLOPS against the GeForce GT 640's 692.7 GFLOPS.

The architectural differences emerge in the memory subsystem and platform positioning. The Quadro K2000 uses GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce GT 640 uses DDR3 memory at 891 MHz with 1782 Mbps effective data rate, yielding only 28.51 GB/s of bandwidth. This more than doubles the memory bandwidth available to the Quadro K2000, which becomes a decisive factor in memory-intensive workloads.

The bus interface also differs. The Quadro K2000 connects via PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GeForce GT 640 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro K2000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation and lists its predecessor as Quadro Fermi and successor as Quadro Maxwell. The GeForce GT 640 belongs to the GeForce 600 generation, with GeForce 500 as its predecessor and GeForce 700 as its successor. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro K2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GeForce GT 640 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

The API support is identical for both cards: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database, and both are single-slot cards with no power connectors required.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data covers three compute workloads: Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K2000 wins all three tests, but the margins vary considerably across workloads.

In Geekbench Metal, the Quadro K2000 scores 3630 against the GeForce GT 640's 2086. This represents a 74% advantage for the Quadro K2000, the single largest delta recorded between the two cards. Metal performance tends to favor the card with higher memory bandwidth, and the Quadro K2000's GDDR5 memory at 64.00 GB/s versus the GeForce GT 640's DDR3 at 28.51 GB/s likely explains much of this gap.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the scores converge substantially. The Quadro K2000 manages 4071, while the GeForce GT 640 reaches 3736. The delta here is only 9%. This narrower margin suggests that raw compute throughput, which is similar between the two cards (732.7 GFLOPS versus 692.7 GFLOPS), plays a larger role in OpenCL performance than memory bandwidth does.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the pattern from OpenCL repeats. The Quadro K2000 scores 4191, and the GeForce GT 640 scores 3809, a 10% difference. Vulkan performance appears to track the same balance of compute capability and memory efficiency, with the Quadro K2000 maintaining a consistent but modest edge.

The aggregate picture shows the Quadro K2000 winning all three head-to-head tests, with a total of 3 wins and 0 losses. However, the competitive context matters. The Quadro K2000's average score of 3964 places it just 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, while trailing the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.3%. The GeForce GT 640's average score of 3210 sits 0.9% behind the Intel Arc Pro B60 and 1.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, while running 2.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 920M and 3.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many specifications due to their common GK107 chip, but several fields diverge. The memory clock differs: the Quadro K2000 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the GeForce GT 640 runs at 891 MHz with 1782 Mbps effective speed. Memory type differs as well, with GDDR5 on the Quadro K2000 and DDR3 on the GeForce GT 640. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 64.00 GB/s versus 28.51 GB/s.

The pixel rate differs by a small margin: 7.632 GPixel/s for the Quadro K2000 and 7.216 GPixel/s for the GeForce GT 640. Texture rate shows 30.53 GTexel/s versus 28.86 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro K2000 and 692.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce GT 640. The TDP also differs: 51 W for the Quadro K2000 and 65 W for the GeForce GT 640, making the professional card more power-efficient despite its higher performance.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro K2000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the GeForce GT 640. Physical dimensions vary as well. The Quadro K2000 measures 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GeForce GT 640 measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length with no recorded height. Display outputs differ: the Quadro K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GeForce GT 640 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

The generation and release timing differ. The Quadro K2000 launched on 2013-02-28 as part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The GeForce GT 640 launched earlier on 2012-06-04 as part of the GeForce 600 generation. The launch MSRP for the Quadro K2000 is 599 USD, while the GeForce GT 640 carries a launch MSRP of 99 USD. Both cards are end-of-life, single-slot designs with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 as the stronger performer. It wins all three head-to-head tests, with the largest margin in Geekbench Metal at 74%, followed by 10% in Geekbench Vulkan and 9% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average score of 3964 places it 754 points above the GeForce GT 640's 3210, a difference that translates into a 4-percentile gap in the global GPU distribution (24th versus 20th percentile).

The Quadro K2000's advantages extend beyond raw scores. Its GDDR5 memory provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the 28.51 GB/s available to the GeForce GT 640. It achieves higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput while consuming 14 W less power. The TDP of 51 W versus 65 W means the Quadro K2000 delivers more performance per watt in every recorded metric.

The GeForce GT 640 does hold some specification advantages. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16 rather than PCIe 2.0 x16, offering a newer bus interface. It includes an HDMI output alongside DVI and DisplayPort, which may simplify connectivity to consumer displays. It also launched earlier and carries a lower launch MSRP of 99 USD compared to the Quadro K2000's 599 USD.

For users choosing between these two cards strictly on recorded performance data, the Quadro K2000 is the clear choice. It wins every benchmark, offers superior memory bandwidth, and runs cooler in terms of TDP. The GeForce GT 640's only redeeming qualities are its newer bus interface and additional HDMI port, neither of which appears in the benchmark scores. The data does not support selecting the GeForce GT 640 for performance reasons.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its most decisive victory comes in Geekbench Metal, where the 74% lead indicates a substantial advantage in Apple's compute API environment. This workload appears to reward the Quadro K2000's memory bandwidth heavily, as the GDDR5 configuration provides 64.00 GB/s against the GeForce GT 640's 28.51 GB/s. Users running Metal-based compute tasks would see the largest real-world difference between these two cards.

The Quadro K2000 also wins in Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, though by narrower margins of 9% and 10% respectively. These workloads rely more on raw compute throughput, where the two cards are closely matched at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 692.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro K2000's consistent edge in these tests suggests that its memory advantage provides a modest but meaningful boost even in compute-bound scenarios.

The GeForce GT 640 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its strengths lie outside the performance metrics. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides a newer bus standard, though the practical impact depends on the host platform. The inclusion of an HDMI 1.4a output gives it broader display connectivity options for consumer monitors and televisions, whereas the Quadro K2000's dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs target professional display setups. The GeForce GT 640's shorter physical length of 145 mm compared to 202 mm may also ease installation in compact cases, though both cards are single-slot designs.

For compute performance across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, the Quadro K2000 is the only choice supported by the data. For users prioritizing a newer PCIe bus interface, HDMI connectivity, or minimal physical footprint, the GeForce GT 640 offers those specific advantages, but it does not win any recorded performance benchmark.