NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M are two end-of-life NVIDIA parts from very different corners of the market: a Kepler-based professional workstation card and a Fermi-based mobile gaming chip. The recorded data presents a curious case, because the mobile GeForce outscores the desktop Quadro in the only head-to-head benchmark available, despite the Quadro holding advantages in raw shading hardware, memory bandwidth, and process efficiency. This analysis walks through what the numbers actually say, where each design wins, and what the specification gaps imply for anyone comparing them today.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head result for this pairing, and it goes decisively to the mobile part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce GTX 560M scored 4855 against the Quadro K2000D's 3919, a 19.3 percent margin in favor of the GTX 560M. That is not a marginal difference. It is the kind of gap that shows up clearly in sustained compute workloads rather than sitting inside run-to-run noise.

Context from each card's rival cluster makes the result more interesting, not less. The K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 3919. Its nearest rivals are a remarkably tight band: the Quadro 2000D at 3930 (a 0.3 percent delta), the Quadro 2000 at 3898 (0.5 percent), the GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.9 percent), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (0.9 percent). In other words, the K2000D is virtually indistinguishable in performance from the Quadro 2000 generation it nominally succeeded, at least as far as this OpenCL measurement is concerned. That raises a fair question about how much the Kepler transition bought this particular professional card in general-purpose compute.

The GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile with an average score of 4855. Its neighbors include the GeForce 940MX at 4844 (0.2 percent), the Radeon R6 M255DX at 4867 (0.2 percent), the GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.8 percent), and, curiously, the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901, only 0.9 percent away in this specific test. That last clustering is worth pausing on: a much newer RTX part landing within one percent of a 2011-era mobile chip in Geekbench OpenCL suggests the test saturates quickly at the low end, which tempers how far the K2000D-versus-560M comparison should be extrapolated to modern workloads.

Still, on the only recorded evidence available, the GTX 560M wins the head-to-head 1-0. The K2000D records zero wins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split here is generational and segment-wide at once. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kx000 generation, built at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip on Fermi 2.0, from the GeForce 500M generation, built at TSMC on a 40 nm process. The K2000D is the newer design by release date, arriving on 2013-02-28, while the GTX 560M dates to 2011-05-29.

The process advantage shows up plainly in density figures. The GK107 die packs 1,270 million transistors into 118 mm², a density of 10.8M transistors per mm². The GF116 manages 1,170 million transistors across a much larger 238 mm² die, at 4.9M per mm². Nearly identical transistor budgets, double the silicon area. Kepler let NVIDIA deliver slightly more transistors in roughly half the die size, and the power story follows: the K2000D has a TDP of 51 W against 75 W for the GTX 560M.

The functional units split in fascinating ways. The K2000D has 384 shading units, exactly double the GTX 560M's 192. Both have 32 TMUs. But the GTX 560M counters with 24 ROPs against the K2000D's 16, and it is here that the mobile Fermi part draws level or ahead in some throughput figures. The K2000D posts a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s versus 6.200 GPixel/s for the GTX 560M, and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s versus 24.80 GTexel/s, so the Quadro's shading advantage does carry into both of those rates. In raw FP32 compute, the K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS against 595.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 560M, roughly a 23 percent theoretical edge.

That theoretical edge inverted by the benchmark result is the central puzzle of this pairing. The database cannot fully resolve it, but the memory subsystem offers a partial clue. The GTX 560M uses a 192 bit bus with GDDR5 running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), yielding 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 1536 MB of memory. The K2000D runs a narrower 128 bit bus, but its GDDR5 clocks at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB. Bandwidth is close, so that alone does not explain the OpenCL gap; the likelier reading is that Fermi's compute-oriented scheduling performs strongly in this particular OpenCL test despite fewer shading units and lower theoretical FLOPS.

Feature support diverges in the K2000D's favor on APIs. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K2000D lists Vulkan support, at version 1.2.175. The GTX 560M has no Vulkan entry in the database. Display outputs also differ by form factor: the K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 560M's outputs are listed as portable-device dependent, as befits an MXM module.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 560M wins where the recorded benchmark matters: OpenCL general compute. Its 4855 score, 19.3 percent clear of the K2000D, makes it the pick on measured compute performance, and its 28th percentile standing against all GPUs edges the K2000D's 23rd. Its 24 ROPs and 192 bit bus also give it a wider back-end for memory-heavy pixel workloads, even though its absolute bandwidth of 60.00 GB/s trails the K2000D's 64.00 GB/s.

The K2000D wins on everything the benchmark does not measure. Its theoretical FP32 output of 732.7 GFLOPS is well ahead of the 595.2 GFLOPS the GTX 560M offers. Its pixel rate (7.632 versus 6.200 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 versus 24.80 GTexel/s) are both higher. It doubles the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1536 MB, which matters for professional datasets and larger scene assets. It runs cooler on paper, with a 51 W TDP against 75 W, and it fits a single-slot desktop form factor with a 202 mm (8 inch) length and 111 mm (4.4 inch) height, needing no power connectors and pairing with a suggested 250 W PSU. And it carries Vulkan 1.2.175 support that the Fermi part lacks entirely.

The K2000D also comes from a professional lineage, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell, and it launched with a stated MSRP of 599 USD. The GTX 560M belongs to the mobile GeForce line between the 400M and 600M generations, with no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The GeForce GTX 560M. It scored 4855 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3919 for the Quadro K2000D, a 19.3 percent advantage, and it is the only head-to-head result in the database, giving the 560M one win against zero for the K2000D.

Q: How do the two compare against all GPUs in the database?

A: The GTX 560M sits in the 28th percentile; the K2000D sits in the 23rd. Both are low-percentile parts by modern standards, though their nearest-rival clusters are extremely tight, within roughly one percent in every listed case.

Q: Does the K2000D have better theoretical compute?

A: Yes. It delivers 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 against 595.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 560M, thanks to 384 shading units versus 192. The OpenCL result nonetheless favors the 560M, illustrating the gap between theoretical throughput and measured performance in this test.

Q: Which has more memory?

A: The K2000D, with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus at 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus at 60.00 GB/s.

Q: Which is more power efficient?

A: On TDP, the K2000D, at 51 W versus 75 W. It is also built on a 28 nm process with 10.8M transistors per mm², versus 40 nm and 4.9M per mm² for the GTX 560M.

Q: Do both support Vulkan?

A: No. The K2000D lists Vulkan 1.2.175; the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support recorded. Both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

• Chip: GK107 (K2000D) versus GF116 (GTX 560M)
• Architecture: Kepler versus Fermi 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx000) versus GeForce 500M
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm, both at TSMC
• Transistors: 1,270 million versus 1,170 million
• Die size: 118 mm² versus 238 mm²; density 10.8M versus 4.9M per mm²
• Shading units: 384 versus 192; TMUs 32 on both; ROPs 16 versus 24
• Pixel rate: 7.632 versus 6.200 GPixel/s; texture rate 30.53 versus 24.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 732.7 versus 595.2 GFLOPS
• Memory: 2 GB versus 1536 MB, both GDDR5; bus 128 bit versus 192 bit; bandwidth 64.00 versus 60.00 GB/s; memory clock 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective)
• TDP: 51 W versus 75 W
• Form factor: single-slot desktop card (202 mm long, 111 mm tall) versus MXM module
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Outputs: 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable-device dependent
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 versus not listed
• Release date: 2013-02-28 versus 2011-05-29
• Predecessor/successor: Quadro Fermi to Quadro Maxwell, versus GeForce 400M to GeForce 600M
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD for the K2000D; none recorded for the GTX 560M

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. If measured OpenCL compute performance is the criterion, the GeForce GTX 560M is the stronger card, winning the only head-to-head test by 19.3 percent and holding the higher percentile ranking. If theoretical throughput, memory capacity, power efficiency, or API currency matter, the Quadro K2000D is the stronger specification on paper, with double the shading units, more FP32 compute, more VRAM, a lower TDP, and Vulkan support the Fermi part lacks.

The honest reading is that neither is a performance option by current standards, both ranking in the low twenties to high twenties percentile-wise against all GPUs. Between them, the benchmark says GTX 560M; the spec sheet says K2000D. Which voice to heed depends entirely on whether the workload resembles the measured OpenCL test or the theoretical profile, and the database offers exactly one data point on which to make that judgment.