GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture powered a wide range of products, and the GeForce GT 755M and Quadro K2000D are two distinct implementations of the same underlying GK107 chip. Both are end-of-life mobile and professional parts, respectively, but the data shows they are not created equal. The GeForce GT 755M holds a decisive lead in the single available benchmark, while the Quadro K2000D offers a different set of physical and interface characteristics. This analysis breaks down the measurable differences, what they mean for real-world usage, and who should consider which card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are lopsided. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. This represents a 25.9% advantage for the GT 755M, a substantial margin that puts the two cards in different performance tiers despite sharing the same chip and transistor count.

The GT 755M’s score is not just higher; it is meaningfully higher in the context of the broader GPU landscape. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 4033, and it sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Meanwhile, the Quadro K2000D’s average score is 3919, placing it at the 23rd percentile. The 25.9% delta in the head-to-head test is far larger than the 2.9% difference in their overall percentile rankings, indicating that the OpenCL workload specifically favors the GT 755M’s configuration.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GT 755M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which scores 4093 and is -1.5% relative to the GT 755M’s average. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is nearly tied with the GT 755M, scoring 4075 and sitting at -1%. On the other side, the Quadro K2000D’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, which scores 3930 and is -0.3% behind. The GT 755M is effectively in a dead heat with modern integrated graphics and entry-level discrete cards, while the Quadro K2000D trails slightly behind its own predecessor and the GeForce GT 745M, which scores 3953.

The single benchmark result is clear: in raw compute performance via OpenCL, the GT 755M is the faster card by a wide margin. The Quadro K2000D’s deficit is not marginal, it is a significant gap that would be noticeable in any compute-heavy workload.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 755M wins the only benchmark where both cards are measured, but the data also reveals where the Quadro K2000D has structural advantages that are not captured by a single compute test.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins on raw performance. Its OpenCL score of 4934 is 25.9% higher than the K2000D’s 3919. The GT 755M also has higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, compared to the K2000D’s unspecified base and boost clocks. The memory clock is also faster on the GT 755M, running at 1350 MHz (effective 5.4 Gbps) versus 1000 MHz (effective 4 Gbps) on the Quadro. This translates directly to higher bandwidth: 86.40 GB/s for the GT 755M versus 64.00 GB/s for the K2000D. The GT 755M also has higher pixel and texture rates, at 8.160 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s, respectively, compared to 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s on the Quadro.

NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins on connectivity and form factor. The K2000D is a single-slot card with a length of 202 mm (8 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), making it a standard desktop expansion card. It features 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which are fixed and known. The GT 755M is an MXM module, meaning its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent", they vary by laptop manufacturer and are not guaranteed. The K2000D also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, which is a useful guideline for system builders. The GT 755M has no such specification.

The K2000D also has a slight edge in power efficiency parity, with a TDP of 51 W versus 50 W for the GT 755M. The difference is negligible. However, the K2000D uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the GT 755M uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16. This is a technical advantage for the GT 755M in terms of bandwidth to the host system, though the practical impact depends on the workload.

In summary, the GT 755M is the performance winner across every measurable compute metric. The Quadro K2000D wins on being a self-contained, fixed-form-factor desktop card with predictable outputs, which is valuable for workstation integration.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GK107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They both have 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², giving a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The architecture is Kepler for both, and they share the same core configuration: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The API support is also identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The differences lie in clock speeds and the resulting throughput. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, while the Quadro K2000D does not list base or boost clocks. This clock advantage drives all the performance deltas. The GT 755M’s FP32 compute is 783.4 GFLOPS, versus 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D. The GT 755M also has a higher memory clock (1350 MHz vs 1000 MHz), leading to higher effective data rate (5.4 Gbps vs 4 Gbps) and higher bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s).

Memory configuration is otherwise identical: both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The K2000D’s lower memory clock is the primary reason for its reduced bandwidth. The bus interface differs, with the GT 755M on PCIe 3.0 x16 and the K2000D on PCIe 2.0 x16. This does not affect compute performance directly but can influence data transfer speeds with the host CPU.

The form factor is a major architectural divergence. The GT 755M is an MXM module, designed for laptops, with no power connectors and a TDP of 50 W. The K2000D is a single-slot desktop card, also with no power connectors, a TDP of 51 W, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K2000D’s dimensions (202 mm length, 111 mm height) make it a standard desktop part, while the GT 755M’s dimensions are not specified because they are dependent on the host laptop.

Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance. They are both purely rasterization and compute parts from the Kepler generation, with the GT 755M being clocked higher for consumer workloads and the K2000D being clocked lower but packaged for professional desktop use.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4934 versus the Quadro K2000D’s 3919, a 25.9% advantage.

Q: Do the two cards have the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 28 nm process. They also have identical core counts: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GT 755M runs its memory at 1350 MHz (effective 5.4 Gbps) for 86.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the K2000D runs at 1000 MHz (effective 4 Gbps) for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better display output options?

A: The Quadro K2000D has fixed outputs: 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The GT 755M’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop.

Q: Is the Quadro K2000D more power-efficient?

A: No meaningful difference. The K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, while the GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W. The K2000D does specify a 250 W suggested PSU, which the GT 755M does not.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GT 755M is roughly on par with the Intel HD Graphics 630 (-1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (-1.5%), while being slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150 (+0.5%). The K2000D is nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (-0.3%) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (+0.5%).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the stronger card. Its 25.9% lead in OpenCL, driven by higher clocks (980 MHz base, 1020 MHz boost), higher memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s), and higher compute throughput (783.4 GFLOPS), makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on GPU compute. Its average benchmark score of 4033 also places it slightly higher in the global percentile ranking (24th versus 23rd).

However, the choice is not purely about performance numbers. The Quadro K2000D is a desktop card with a known form factor: single-slot, 202 mm long, 111 mm tall, with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. It is designed to be installed in a workstation and forgotten. The GT 755M is an MXM module, meaning it is only usable in a laptop that supports that form factor, and its display outputs are not guaranteed.

For users building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the Quadro K2000D offers a predictable, self-contained solution with a 250 W suggested PSU, but it comes with a 599 USD launch MSRP. For users with a compatible laptop, the GT 755M offers significantly better performance at a lower power draw (50 W vs 51 W). If the priority is compute speed, the GT 755M wins outright. If the priority is a fixed desktop form factor with standard outputs, the K2000D is the only option that fits that requirement. The benchmark data does not show any workload where the K2000D is faster, so the GT 755M is the recommended choice for performance, while the K2000D is the choice for specific desktop integration needs.