NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but narrow outcome: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M holds the single recorded head-to-head victory. In the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 560M scores 4855 against the Quadro K2000’s 4071, a 16.1% margin. The database records one win for the GTX 560M and zero for the Quadro K2000.

However, the overall picture is more nuanced. The Quadro K2000 carries a higher average benchmark score across all its recorded tests (3964) compared to the GTX 560M’s single-test average of 4855, but that comparison is skewed by test availability. The GTX 560M also holds a better percentile rank (28th vs. 24th), placing it slightly higher among all GPUs in the database.

For buyers deciding between these two end-of-life parts, the choice hinges on workload. The GTX 560M is the stronger compute performer in the OpenCL metric that both share. The Quadro K2000 offers broader API support, including Vulkan 1.2.175, which the GTX 560M lacks entirely. Users needing Vulkan compatibility must choose the Quadro, while those prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput should favor the GTX 560M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architecture generations, which explains their contrasting characteristics. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm node. This process gap is visible in the physical metrics: the K2000’s die is 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors, while the GTX 560M’s die is nearly double at 238 mm² but holds fewer transistors at 1,170 million. Transistor density tells the story: 10.8M per mm² for Kepler versus 4.9M per mm² for Fermi, a 2.2x density advantage for the newer architecture.

Shader configuration differs significantly. The Quadro K2000 packs 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560M runs 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The K2000 has double the shader count but fewer ROPs. This translates into different peak rates: the K2000 achieves 7.632 GPixel/s pixel fill and 30.53 GTexel/s texture fill, while the GTX 560M manages 6.200 GPixel/s and 24.80 GTexel/s. The K2000 leads in both fill rate categories and in FP32 compute at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS, a 23% advantage.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus but achieves only 60.00 GB/s bandwidth due to a lower 625 MHz clock (2.5 Gbps effective). The K2000’s narrower bus is offset by faster memory clocks, giving it 6.7% more bandwidth.

Power and form factor differ substantially. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card rated at 51 W TDP with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU, and interfaces via PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 560M is an MXM module rated at 75 W TDP, also without power connectors, using an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Display outputs reflect their intended markets: the K2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 560M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

API support shows a key divergence. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K2000 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support recorded. This makes the K2000 the only option for Vulkan-based workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071. The delta is 16.1% in favor of the GTX 560M, which is recorded as the winner.

This result is notable because the Quadro K2000 has higher theoretical compute specifications. The K2000’s FP32 rating of 732.7 GFLOPS exceeds the GTX 560M’s 595.2 GFLOPS by 23.1%. Similarly, the K2000 leads in texture rate (30.53 vs. 24.80 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (7.632 vs. 6.200 GPixel/s). Yet in the actual OpenCL workload, the GTX 560M outperforms it.

The GTX 560M’s win may be attributed to its higher ROP count (24 vs. 16) and the older Fermi architecture’s efficiency in this specific compute pattern. The wider 192-bit memory bus, despite lower clocks, could also play a role in certain access patterns. However, the database does not include per-test breakdowns beyond the aggregate score, so the precise cause remains speculative.

For context on the competitors’ peer groups, the GTX 560M’s 4855 average places it near the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844, 0.2% slower), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, 0.2% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, 0.8% faster). The Quadro K2000’s 3964 average sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% slower), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.3% slower). The GTX 560M’s nearest rivals are consistently faster than the K2000’s nearest rivals, reinforcing the performance gap between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M has an average benchmark score of 4855, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. However, the GTX 560M’s average is based on a single recorded benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), whereas the K2000 has three recorded benchmarks (Geekbench Metal at 3630, Geekbench OpenCL at 4071, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4191).

Q: Does the Quadro K2000 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The GeForce GTX 560M has no Vulkan support listed in the database, making the K2000 the only choice for Vulkan-based applications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 offers 64.00 GB/s bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GeForce GTX 560M offers 60.00 GB/s from 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus clocked at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The K2000 leads by 6.7% in bandwidth.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, which is 16.1% higher than the Quadro K2000’s 4071. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and the GTX 560M wins it.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, exactly double the GeForce GTX 560M’s 192. Despite this advantage, the GTX 560M wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that raw shader count does not directly translate to compute performance in this test.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a 51 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors needed. The GeForce GTX 560M has a 75 W TDP and also requires no power connectors, but no suggested PSU is listed. The K2000 is the more power-efficient option.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 560M wins in raw compute benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4855 dominates the Quadro K2000’s 4071 by 16.1%. This makes it the better choice for OpenCL-based workloads such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, and compute-heavy rendering tasks. The GTX 560M’s higher percentile rank (28 vs. 24) also suggests it sits slightly higher in the overall GPU performance distribution, and its nearest rivals are consistently more powerful than the K2000’s nearest rivals.

The Quadro K2000 wins in several specification categories that matter for specific use cases. It has higher peak FP32 compute at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS, a 23.1% advantage. It leads in texture fill rate (30.53 vs. 24.80 GTexel/s) and pixel fill rate (7.632 vs. 6.200 GPixel/s). Its memory bandwidth is 6.7% higher at 64.00 GB/s. These specifications suggest the K2000 is better suited for texture-heavy graphics workloads and tasks that benefit from higher fill rates.

The K2000 also wins decisively on feature support. It offers Vulkan 1.2.175, which the GTX 560M lacks entirely. Its display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) provide modern connectivity options, whereas the GTX 560M’s outputs are portable device dependent. The K2000’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and single-slot form factor make it suitable for desktop workstation integration, while the GTX 560M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface targets laptops and mobile workstations.

Power efficiency favors the K2000. At 51 W TDP, it consumes 32% less power than the GTX 560M’s 75 W while delivering higher theoretical peak performance. The K2000’s 28 nm Kepler architecture achieves this with a smaller die (118 mm² vs. 238 mm²), fewer transistors (1,270M vs. 1,170M), and higher transistor density.

The use-case split is therefore clear. For OpenCL compute workloads where the single benchmark matters most, the GTX 560M is the stronger pick. For desktop workstations requiring Vulkan support, modern display outputs, lower power consumption, and higher theoretical fill rates, the Quadro K2000 is the better fit. The GTX 560M wins the one measurable contest, but the K2000 wins the broader feature and efficiency comparison.