NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M are both end-of-life mobile and desktop graphics solutions from NVIDIA, built on the Kepler architecture. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, performance gap between the two, with the Quadro K2000D taking the lead in the available benchmark while the GT 735M offers a much lower power draw. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and specification variances to determine which GPU is better suited for specific tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the Quadro K2000D scores 3919, while the GT 735M scores 3616. This results in a decisive win for the Quadro K2000D, which is 8.4% faster than the GT 735M. This is a significant margin for two GPUs that share the same number of shading units, indicating that other factors, such as memory bandwidth and clock speeds, play a crucial role in real-world performance.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K2000D’s score places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 735M sits in the 21st percentile. While these percentiles are close, the delta between them is consistent with the head-to-head result. The Quadro K2000D’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, which scores 3930 (a -0.3% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, which scores 3953 (a -0.9% difference). This shows the K2000D is competitive with its direct predecessor and a higher-tier mobile part.

The GT 735M’s closest competitors in the data are surprisingly different. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, which scores 3629 (a -0.3% difference), and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, which scores 3596 (a 0.6% difference). The fact that a modern high-end mobile workstation GPU and a dedicated desktop GPU are within a fraction of a percent of the GT 735M’s score reflects the benchmark’s specific workload, but it also highlights that the GT 735M is a modest performer. The data clearly shows the Quadro K2000D is the faster GPU, but the real question is whether that performance advantage justifies its other characteristics.

The Verdict

From the data, the verdict is straightforward for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the superior choice. It wins the only available head-to-head benchmark by a solid 8.4% margin. Its score of 3919 is higher than the GT 735M’s 3616, and it also holds a higher percentile rank. Anyone needing maximum OpenCL compute performance from these two options should select the Quadro K2000D.

However, the data also presents a strong counter-argument for the GT 735M. Its TDP is 33 W, which is significantly lower than the Quadro K2000D’s 51 W. This is a 18 W difference, or roughly 35% less power. For a laptop or a small form-factor system where thermal headroom and battery life are critical, the GT 735M’s efficiency is a major advantage. The GT 735M also features a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which is a newer generation than the Quadro K2000D’s PCIe 2.0 x16, though the practical impact of this is limited by the GPU’s lower performance.

The choice depends on the priority. If absolute performance is the only metric, the Quadro K2000D wins. If power efficiency and a newer bus interface are more important than a 8.4% performance gain, the GT 735M is the logical pick. The Quadro K2000D also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, a figure not available for the GT 735M, which suggests a different market positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000D wins in pure compute performance. Its 8.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, coupled with a higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s, indicates it can handle more demanding graphical and compute workloads. Its memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is vastly superior to the GT 735M’s 14.40 GB/s, making it better suited for tasks that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. This makes it the winner for professional applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and scientific computing.

The GT 735M wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 33 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the Quadro K2000D’s 51 W TDP would be prohibitive. The data shows it is also a single-slot, IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) solution, whereas the Quadro K2000D is a single-slot add-in card with dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. This means the GT 735M is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard, while the K2000D is a discrete card. For a portable system, the GT 735M is the only viable option.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is faster, scoring 3919 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M’s 3616, an 8.4% difference.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shaders?

A: Yes, both the Quadro K2000D and the GT 735M have 384 shading units.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M has a lower TDP of 33 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between them?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s with a 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory. The GT 735M has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s with a 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s, while the GT 735M achieves 5.024 GPixel/s.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Both are based on the Kepler architecture, but the GT 735M is specified as "Kepler 2.0" while the Quadro K2000D is simply "Kepler". They also use different chips: the K2000D uses GK107, and the GT 735M uses GK208.

Architecture Differences

While both GPUs are built on the 28 nm process at TSMC, the underlying architectures have distinct characteristics. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip, which is part of the original Kepler architecture. In contrast, the GT 735M uses the GK208 chip, designated as Kepler 2.0. This generation difference is reflected in the transistor counts and die sizes. The GK107 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the GK208 has 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 87 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for the GT 735M (11.7M / mm²) compared to the K2000D (10.8M / mm²).

The memory subsystems are a major architectural divergence. The K2000D uses GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The GT 735M uses slower DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, resulting in a much lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The memory clocks also differ, with the K2000D running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the GT 735M at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The rendering pipelines also differ. While both have 32 TMUs and 384 shading units, the K2000D has 16 ROPs, while the GT 735M only has 8. This explains the K2000D’s higher pixel rate. The GT 735M has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 628 MHz, whereas the K2000D’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The GT 735M also features a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which is newer than the K2000D’s PCIe 2.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the provided data:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D | 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 |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 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 Performance | 732.7 GFLOPS | 482.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

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

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

| Dimensions | 202 mm (L), 111 mm (H) | Not specified |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 800M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not specified |

These differences paint a clear picture: the Quadro K2000D is a higher-performance desktop part with more memory bandwidth and compute throughput, while the GT 735M is a lower-power, more integrated mobile solution with a newer bus interface.