NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 is defined by a single benchmark result in the database: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points, while the GeForce GT 640 scores 3736 points. The delta between them is 4.9 percent, with the Quadro K2000D emerging as the winner. This is a meaningful margin, though not a dominant one. A 4.9 percent lead in an OpenCL workload suggests that the Quadro K2000D holds a measurable, but not overwhelming, compute advantage over the GT 640.

When placed in the broader context of their respective peer groups, the two cards tell different stories. The Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce GT 640 sits at the 20th percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (average score 3930, a 0.3 percent difference), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9 percent), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9 percent). The Quadro K2000D's average benchmark score of 3919 places it almost exactly in the middle of this tight cluster. It trails the Quadro 2000D by just 0.3 percent, and it leads the Quadro 2000 by 0.5 percent. This is a razor-thin margin, indicating that within the professional Quadro lineup, the K2000D is essentially a peer of its immediate predecessor and sibling.

The GeForce GT 640, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3210, which is notably lower than its head-to-head OpenCL score of 3736. This discrepancy arises because the GT 640 also has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan results in the database: 2086 for Metal and 3809 for Vulkan. The Metal score is significantly lower, dragging the average down. The GT 640's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (average score 3182, 0.9 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3163, 1.5 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287, 2.3 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316, 3.2 percent). The GT 640's average of 3210 puts it slightly above the Arc Pro B60 and the Quadro P1000, but slightly below the GeForce 920M and GT 730M. In terms of raw average performance, the GT 640 is a mid-pack contender among its nearest peers, whereas the Quadro K2000D sits at the top of its own cluster.

The head-to-head result, however, only covers OpenCL. The GT 640's Vulkan score of 3809 is actually higher than its OpenCL score, and it comes within 2.9 percent of the Quadro K2000D's OpenCL result. The database does not provide a Vulkan score for the Quadro K2000D, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible. The same applies to Metal, where the GT 640 scores 2086, but no equivalent is recorded for the Quadro. This means the available data shows a single clear win for the Quadro K2000D, but it leaves open the possibility that the GT 640 could perform differently in other workloads, particularly those that favor Vulkan or Metal.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3919, versus 3736 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640, a 4.9 percent difference.

Q: How does the Quadro K2000D compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2000D is nearly tied with the Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3 percent behind) and the Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5 percent ahead). It also sits close to the GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9 percent behind) and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9 percent ahead).

Q: Does the GeForce GT 640 have any benchmark scores beyond OpenCL?

A: Yes, the GT 640 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 2086 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3809. Its average benchmark score across all three tests is 3210.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K2000D has an average benchmark score of 3919. The GeForce GT 640 has an average benchmark score of 3210, which is lower because its Metal score of 2086 pulls the average down.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank in percentiles among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2000D is at the 23rd percentile, while the GeForce GT 640 is at the 20th percentile. The Quadro sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Q: Which GPU has a higher Vulkan score?

A: The database only lists a Vulkan score for the GeForce GT 640 (3809). No Vulkan score is recorded for the Quadro K2000D, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000D wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL. With a score of 3919, it outperforms the GT 640's 3736 by 4.9 percent. This advantage in OpenCL is consistent with its placement in the database: the Quadro K2000D has a higher percentile rank (23rd) than the GT 640 (20th), and its average benchmark score (3919) is higher than the GT 640's average (3210). The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 7.216 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 28.86 GTexel/s), indicating that it can sustain slightly faster rasterization and texture operations. Its FP32 compute is also higher at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 692.7 GFLOPS. For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, the Quadro K2000D is the clear pick.

The GeForce GT 640, however, has strengths that do not appear in the head-to-head comparison. Its Vulkan score of 3809 is higher than its own OpenCL score and is within 2.9 percent of the Quadro's OpenCL result. The database does not list a Vulkan score for the Quadro K2000D, so it is possible that the GT 640 could outperform the Quadro in Vulkan-specific workloads. The GT 640 also has a Metal score of 2086, which is lower than its other scores, but it is the only one of the two cards with any Metal data. The GT 640's memory runs at 1782 Mbps effective, which is lower than the Quadro's 4 Gbps effective, and its memory bandwidth is 28.51 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The GT 640's advantage lies in its broader API coverage in the database and its shorter physical length (145 mm versus 202 mm), making it easier to fit in compact systems.

In practical terms, the Quadro K2000D is the stronger compute card for OpenCL-heavy tasks, while the GT 640 may be adequate for lighter workloads or for users who prioritize a smaller physical footprint. The GT 640 also has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 51 W for the Quadro, which is counterintuitive: the Quadro consumes less power despite delivering higher performance. The GT 640's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a generation newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, which could offer higher transfer rates in systems that support it, though the database does not quantify this benefit in benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same underlying chip, the GK107, but differ in several key specifications. The Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GT 640 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the memory clock differs: the Quadro runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the GT 640 runs at 891 MHz with 1782 Mbps effective. This results in a significant bandwidth gap: the Quadro delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the GT 640 delivers 28.51 GB/s, a difference of over 2.2 times. The Quadro's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 7.216 GPixel/s for the GT 640, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 28.86 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 692.7 GFLOPS for the GT 640.

The TDP also differs: the Quadro is rated at 51 W, while the GT 640 is rated at 65 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W power supply. The bus interface differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 640 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also vary: the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GT 640 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The physical dimensions differ as well: the Quadro is 202 mm long (8 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), while the GT 640 is 145 mm long (5.7 inches) with no height listed. The launch MSRP for the Quadro K2000D is 599 USD, and the launch MSRP for the GeForce GT 640 is 99 USD.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. Both have identical transistor counts of 1,270 million and identical die sizes of 118 mm², resulting in the same transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are identical: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for both cards. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The API support is also identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 for both.

The architectural differences are therefore limited to the memory subsystem and the generation. The Quadro K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, while the GT 640 belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell. The GT 640's predecessor is the GeForce 500 series, and its successor is the GeForce 700 series. The release dates differ: the Quadro K2000D launched on 2013-02-28, while the GT 640 launched on 2012-06-04, making the GT 640 the older card by roughly nine months. Both are end-of-life products. The key architectural takeaway is that the two cards are essentially the same silicon, but the Quadro pairs it with faster GDDR5 memory, while the GT 640 is hamstrung by DDR3. This memory difference is the primary driver of the performance gap, as the core config is otherwise identical.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 4.9 percent. It also has higher pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and memory bandwidth, all from the same GK107 chip. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 64.00 GB/s, more than double the GT 640's 28.51 GB/s, which explains the performance advantage despite the identical core configuration. The Quadro also has a lower TDP (51 W versus 65 W) and a higher percentile ranking (23rd versus 20th). For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL, the Quadro K2000D is the superior choice.

The GeForce GT 640, however, is not without its merits. It has a shorter physical length (145 mm versus 202 mm), which makes it more suitable for small form factor builds. It also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which is a generation newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16. The GT 640's Vulkan score of 3809 is higher than its own OpenCL score and comes close to the Quadro's OpenCL result, suggesting that in Vulkan-based workloads, the GT 640 could be competitive, though the database lacks a direct comparison. The GT 640 also has a Metal score, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

For professional or compute-focused users, the Quadro K2000D is the data-backed pick. For users who need a compact card with broader API coverage in the database, or who are willing to accept lower bandwidth for a lower power draw, the GeForce GT 640 may suffice. The numbers, however, favor the Quadro K2000D in raw performance, and the 4.9 percent OpenCL lead, combined with the massive bandwidth advantage, makes it the stronger overall GPU in the recorded benchmarks.