GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are both built on the same GK107 Kepler architecture, yet they serve distinct purposes. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the GeForce GT 755M excels in raw compute workloads, while the Quadro K2000 demonstrates superior graphics API performance. Despite sharing identical core counts and memory capacity, their clock speeds, memory bandwidth, and interface choices create meaningful performance differences that dictate their ideal use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 755M is the compute-oriented part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4934, which is 21.2% higher than the Quadro K2000’s 4071 in the same test. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards across all tested workloads. The GT 755M’s advantage comes from its higher base clock of 980 MHz and boost clock of 1020 MHz, compared to the Quadro K2000 which has no listed base or boost clock in the data. This translates into a peak FP32 rate of 783.4 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 6.9% advantage in raw floating-point throughput. For applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose compute or acceleration, the GT 755M is the clear winner.

The Quadro K2000, by contrast, wins in graphics API benchmarks. It scores 3630 in Geekbench Metal, which is 13.7% higher than the GT 755M’s 3132. This is a substantial margin in a test that measures graphics performance through Apple’s Metal API. The Quadro K2000 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4191, a test that the GT 755M does not have data for, suggesting the Quadro may have broader API support in the benchmark suite. The Quadro K2000’s design targets professional graphics workloads, and the data supports this: it outperforms the consumer card in at least one graphics-specific test while maintaining competitive compute performance with a 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 rate.

The overall average benchmark scores are close: the GT 755M averages 4033 across two tests, while the Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across three tests. This suggests the GT 755M has a slight edge in pure computational throughput, but the Quadro K2000’s additional Vulkan result and strong Metal showing indicate it is more versatile across different graphics APIs. The percentile rank for both cards is 24th versus all GPUs, meaning they sit at the same relative performance tier despite their different strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The GeForce GT 755M wins decisively, scoring 4934 versus the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 21.2% advantage. This aligns with the GT 755M’s higher FP32 throughput of 783.4 GFLOPS compared to 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro K2000.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000 have any benchmark where it beats the GT 755M?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Metal the Quadro K2000 scores 3630 versus 3132 for the GT 755M, a 13.7% lead. The Quadro also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4191, while the GT 755M has no Vulkan benchmark result listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GT 755M averages 4033 across its two benchmark results, while the Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across its three results. The difference is only 1.7%, placing both cards at the 24th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Are they based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK107 chip from the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 1,270 million transistors and a die size of 118 mm².

Q: Do they have the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GT 755M has a higher memory clock of 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro K2000. This gives the GT 755M a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GT 755M achieves 8.160 GPixel/s, while the Quadro K2000 achieves 7.632 GPixel/s. The GT 755M’s advantage comes from its higher clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their head-to-head results evenly, with one win each. The most significant margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce GT 755M posts a score of 4934 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071. This 21.2% delta is the largest performance difference between the two cards in any benchmark. The GT 755M’s higher memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s likely contributes to this OpenCL advantage, as compute workloads often stress memory throughput. Additionally, the GT 755M’s boost clock of 1020 MHz helps sustain higher processing rates during sustained compute tasks.

In Geekbench Metal, the results reverse. The Quadro K2000 scores 3630, which is 13.7% higher than the GT 755M’s 3132. This is a notable win for the Quadro, especially considering that the GT 755M has higher raw compute specifications. The Quadro K2000’s advantage in Metal suggests that its driver optimizations or hardware design favor graphics API performance over generic compute. The Quadro also has a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 4191, which stands above both cards’ Metal results, though no direct comparison is possible since the GT 755M lacks a Vulkan score.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The GT 755M’s average of 4033 is derived from its two strong results: a high OpenCL score and a lower Metal score. The Quadro K2000’s average of 3964 comes from three results: a moderate OpenCL score, a higher Metal score, and a strong Vulkan score. If the GT 755M had a Vulkan result, its average could shift, but based on available data, the two cards are within 1.7% of each other on average. This near-parity, combined with the 24th percentile ranking for both, indicates that they occupy the same performance tier overall, with the choice between them depending on the specific application’s API preferences.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap is in memory clock speed. The GeForce GT 755M runs its GDDR5 memory at 1350 MHz, yielding 5.4 Gbps effective, while the Quadro K2000 runs at 1000 MHz, yielding 4 Gbps effective. This results in a bandwidth difference of 86.40 GB/s for the GT 755M versus 64.00 GB/s for the Quadro K2000, a 35% advantage for the consumer card. This difference directly impacts compute and texture-heavy workloads.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, while the Quadro K2000 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. This translates to performance metrics: the GT 755M achieves 8.160 GPixel/s pixel rate and 32.64 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s for the Quadro. The FP32 compute rate is 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT 755M and 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 6.9% difference.

The bus interface differs: the GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This could affect data transfer speeds in some workloads, though the practical impact depends on the system. The physical form factors also diverge: the GT 755M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, while the Quadro K2000 is a Single-slot card with a 202 mm length (8 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches), a 51 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs differ as well: the GT 755M is “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Quadro K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Finally, the release dates show a four-month gap. The Quadro K2000 launched on February 28, 2013, while the GT 755M launched on June 24, 2013. The Quadro K2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GT 755M has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: the GK107 chip from NVIDIA’s Kepler family, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. They have identical transistor counts of 1,270 million and a die size of 118 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The core configuration is also identical: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The architectural differences emerge in how the chips are configured and deployed. The GT 755M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, while the Quadro K2000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. This generational distinction reflects different market positioning: the GeForce line targets consumer laptops with an MXM form factor, while the Quadro line targets professional workstations with a single-slot desktop design.

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means software compatibility is not a differentiator. However, the Quadro K2000’s professional lineage is evident in its display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort) versus the GT 755M’s portable-device-dependent outputs.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The GT 755M’s predecessor is GeForce 600M and successor is GeForce 800M, while the Quadro K2000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell. These lineage differences highlight the separate product tracks: consumer mobile graphics versus professional desktop graphics.

The power characteristics are nearly identical, with the GT 755M at 50 W and the Quadro K2000 at 51 W. This suggests similar thermal envelopes, but the GT 755M’s MXM form factor and lack of power connectors make it suitable for laptops, while the Quadro K2000’s single-slot design with a 250 W PSU recommendation targets desktop workstations. The Quadro K2000’s lower memory bandwidth and clock speeds, despite identical core counts, indicate a design optimized for stability and certification rather than peak performance.