GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro K2000 and GeForce GT 735M are both 28 nm Kepler parts aimed at different market segments, but their benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro K2000, a professional workstation card from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, delivers a 12.6% higher Geekbench OpenCL score than the mobile GeForce GT 735M from the GeForce 700M series. While both share the same shading unit count and API support, their memory subsystems, clock strategies, and physical designs diverge sharply. The data shows a 51 W single-slot desktop card against a 33 W integrated mobile GPU, with the Quadro winning the only shared benchmark outright.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 than the GeForce GT 735M in the shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the GT 735M scores 3616. This gives the Quadro a 12.6% performance advantage, with the deltaPct listed as 12.6 in the head-to-head data.

Q: Do the two GPUs share the same architecture?

A: Both are built on NVIDIA’s 28 nm process by TSMC, but they belong to different architectural branches. The Quadro K2000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, while the GT 735M uses Kepler 2.0 with the GK208 chip. Despite this, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 735M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in just 14.40 GB/s, a 4.4x lower bandwidth figure.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GeForce GT 735M has a higher transistor density at 11.7M transistors per mm², compared to the Quadro K2000’s 10.8M / mm². The GT 735M packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, while the Quadro K2000 uses 1,270 million transistors across a larger 118 mm² die.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of power draw and physical size?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a 51 W TDP and is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The GT 735M has a 33 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated dimensions listed, drawing power directly from the portable device.

Q: What are the pixel and texture fillrate differences?

A: The Quadro K2000 achieves 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the GT 735M manages 5.024 GPixel/s and 20.10 GTexel/s. The Quadro leads by roughly 52% in pixel rate and 52% in texture rate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge at the chip level. The Quadro K2000 is built on the GK107 chip, part of the first-generation Kepler architecture, while the GT 735M uses the GK208 chip under the Kepler 2.0 moniker. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the Quadro has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8M / mm². The GT 735M has fewer transistors, 1,020 million, but on a smaller 87 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 11.7M / mm².

Shading unit counts are identical at 384, and both GPUs have 32 texture mapping units (TMUs). The critical architectural split appears in the render output units (ROPs): the Quadro K2000 has 16 ROPs, while the GT 735M has only 8. This directly explains the Quadro’s higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s. The memory interface also differs fundamentally, the Quadro uses a 128-bit bus with GDDR5, while the GT 735M is limited to a 64-bit bus with DDR3. The memory clocks reflect this: the Quadro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GT 735M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Clock behavior is another distinguishing feature. The GT 735M has explicit base and boost clocks of 575 MHz and 628 MHz, respectively, while the Quadro K2000 lists no base or boost clock in its specifications. The Quadro compensates with significantly higher memory bandwidth and double the ROPs. The GT 735M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the Quadro K2000 relies on PCIe 2.0 x16. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, with no ray tracing or tensor cores present on either chip.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute workloads: the Quadro K2000 outperforms the GT 735M by 12.6% in the only directly comparable benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), with scores of 4071 versus 3616. The Quadro also holds a higher average benchmark score of 3964 across three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The GT 735M’s single OpenCL score of 3616 puts it in the 21st percentile. For users choosing between these two, the Quadro K2000 is the stronger option for any OpenCL-based application, offering higher pixel throughput (7.632 vs 5.024 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (30.53 vs 20.10 GTexel/s), and 4.4x the memory bandwidth.

However, the GT 735M has advantages in power efficiency and physical integration. At 33 W TDP, it draws 35% less power than the Quadro’s 51 W, and as an IGP it requires no expansion slot or power connectors. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card needing a 250 W PSU. The GT 735M is designed for portable devices, with display outputs being "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for workstation displays. The Quadro K2000 was released on 2013-02-28, one month before the GT 735M’s 2013-03-31 launch. The Quadro carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the GT 735M has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | GK107 | GK208 |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 628 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 5.024 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 20.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 482.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

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

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

| Dimensions | 202 mm x 111 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2013-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 800M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the GT 735M’s 3616. This represents a 12.6% lead for the Quadro. The margin is substantial but not overwhelming, the GT 735M is within striking distance in raw compute terms, though the Quadro’s architectural advantages suggest the gap would widen in memory-bound tasks. The Quadro’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s is the most striking discrepancy, making the 12.6% OpenCL delta seem modest given that the Quadro has 4x the memory throughput.

Looking at derived metrics, the Quadro’s FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS is 51.9% higher than the GT 735M’s 482.3 GFLOPS. This is a larger gap than the OpenCL score suggests, indicating that the GT 735M’s lower clock speeds (575 MHz base, 628 MHz boost) limit its compute potential despite matching the Quadro’s 384 shading units. The Quadro’s pixel rate advantage is also pronounced: 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s, a 52% lead that stems from having 16 ROPs instead of 8. Texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the Quadro at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s.

In terms of aggregate performance, the Quadro K2000’s average benchmark score is 3964, computed from three tests: Geekbench Metal at 3630, Geekbench OpenCL at 4071, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4191. The GT 735M’s average is 3616, based solely on its OpenCL result. The Quadro’s Vulkan score of 4191 is its strongest, suggesting it handles modern compute APIs efficiently. The GT 735M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (avg score 3629, deltaPct -0.3), meaning the GT 735M is slightly above that card, and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (avg score 3596, deltaPct 0.6). The Quadro K2000, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (avg 3957, deltaPct 0.2) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg 3956, deltaPct 0.2).

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every measured performance category. It dominates the GT 735M in OpenCL compute (4071 vs 3616), FP32 floating-point (732.7 vs 482.3 GFLOPS), pixel fillrate (7.632 vs 5.024 GPixel/s), texture fillrate (30.53 vs 20.10 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (64.00 vs 14.40 GB/s). This makes it the clear choice for workstation applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration, high-resolution texture processing, or memory-intensive data movement. Its dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and DVI port also make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. The Quadro’s higher 51 W TDP and single-slot form factor indicate it is meant for desktop workstations where power and space are less constrained.

The GeForce GT 735M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 33 W TDP is 35% lower than the Quadro’s 51 W, and its IGP designation means it requires no dedicated slot, power connector, or suggested PSU. This makes it the appropriate choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal headroom are priorities. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface offers a newer bus standard, though with half the lanes of the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16. The GT 735M’s display outputs are dependent on the portable device, meaning it can drive whatever panel the laptop manufacturer integrates. While it trails the Quadro in all compute benchmarks, the GT 735M’s lower power draw and integrated design make it a functional option for basic graphics acceleration in mobile form factors.

The benchmark data also shows the GT 735M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, a desktop card, with only a 0.3% deltaPct separating them. This places the GT 735M in a different performance tier than the Quadro K2000, whose nearest rivals (GeForce 830M, Radeon R5 M420, GeForce GT 745M) all score near 3950-3980, consistently above the GT 735M’s 3616. For users prioritizing raw performance, the Quadro K2000 is the only logical choice. For users prioritizing low power consumption and integrated mobility, the GT 735M serves that niche, albeit with the understanding that its 21st percentile performance ranking places it below a quarter of all GPUs.