NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they belong to different product lineages and eras. The Quadro 2000 is a professional workstation GPU built on the Fermi architecture, while the GTX 650 is a consumer desktop card based on the newer Kepler architecture. The data provided shows a single direct head-to-head benchmark, but the surrounding specifications and rival comparisons paint a clear picture of two very different products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. This gives the GTX 650 a 14.2% advantage in raw compute throughput. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the consumer card is significantly faster in general-purpose GPU compute workloads. The Quadro 2000’s score of 3898 places it slightly above its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883 (a 0.4% difference). Meanwhile, the GTX 650’s score of 4545 is notably higher than its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110, which scores 3834 (a -0.3% delta for the MX110). This means the GTX 650 is not just ahead of the Quadro 2000, but also outperforms a more modern entry-level mobile GPU by a wide margin.

Interestingly, the aggregate benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Quadro 2000 has an average benchmark score of 3898, while the GTX 650 has a lower average of 3823. This discrepancy arises because the GTX 650’s average includes results from other tests: a Geekbench Metal score of 2400 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4524. The Metal score, in particular, drags down its average, suggesting that while the GTX 650 excels in OpenCL and Vulkan, it is comparatively weak in Apple’s Metal API. The Quadro 2000, having only an OpenCL score, maintains a higher average despite losing the head-to-head matchup. This highlights the importance of looking at specific workloads rather than relying on a single aggregate number.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 is the clear winner for compute performance. Its 14.2% lead in OpenCL is the only direct benchmark, and it wins the sole head-to-head contest. The GTX 650 also shows a higher peak throughput in its best scores, reaching 4545 and 4524 in OpenCL and Vulkan respectively, which are far above the Quadro 2000’s 3898. If the task is general-purpose compute, rendering, or any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 650 is the superior choice based on the available numbers.

However, the Quadro 2000 has its own merits. Its average benchmark score of 3898 is higher than the GTX 650’s 3823, and it sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 650 sits at the 22nd. This small percentile difference suggests that the Quadro 2000 is slightly more consistent across the tests it participates in, even if it lacks the peak performance of the GTX 650. For a professional environment where stability and consistency across a narrow set of validated applications might be more important than raw speed, the Quadro 2000 could be the safer pick. But strictly from the performance data, the GTX 650 wins the compute crown.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, less efficient design. The GTX 650, in contrast, uses the GK106 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer process node allows for a much higher transistor density: 11.5M / mm² for the GTX 650 versus 4.9M / mm² for the Quadro 2000. This is a massive difference, explaining why the GTX 650 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000 has only 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die.

The architectural leap from Fermi to Kepler brings significant changes. The GTX 650 has 384 shading units, double the 192 found in the Quadro 2000. Both cards have 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units. However, the GTX 650’s higher clock rates and more efficient design give it a pixel rate of 8.464 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 33.86 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro 2000’s 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also favors the GTX 650, with 812.5 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000. The GTX 650 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

Beyond the architecture, several key specifications differ between the two cards. The memory subsystem is a major point of divergence. While both have 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the GTX 650’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (effective 5 Gbps), yielding a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The Quadro 2000’s memory is clocked at 650 MHz (effective 2.6 Gbps), giving it just 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This doubling of memory bandwidth is a critical advantage for the GTX 650 in memory-intensive workloads.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 650 has a slightly higher TDP of 65 W and needs a single 6-pin power connector. Both cards are single-slot and have a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro 2000 is longer at 178 mm (7 inches) compared to the GTX 650’s 147 mm (5.8 inches), and it has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches); the GTX 650’s height is not listed. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 650 uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are similar, with both featuring 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, though the GTX 650 specifies DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro 2000’s launch MSRP was 599 USD; the GTX 650 has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute score in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s score of 3898.

Q: How does the GTX 650’s average benchmark score compare to the Quadro 2000’s?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a higher average benchmark score of 3898, while the GTX 650’s average is 3823. This is because the GTX 650’s average includes a lower Geekbench Metal score of 2400, which pulls its average down.

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

A: The GTX 650 has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, which is nearly double the Quadro 2000’s 41.60 GB/s, despite both using 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are there any architectural advantages for the Quadro 2000?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a smaller transistor count of 1,170 million and a lower TDP of 62 W, requiring no power connectors. It also has a higher average benchmark score and sits at the 23rd percentile versus the GTX 650’s 22nd.

Q: Does the GTX 650 support more modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the GTX 650 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the launch price of the Quadro 2000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GTX 650 does not have a listed launch MSRP in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 is the unequivocal winner in compute-heavy tasks. Its 14.2% lead in OpenCL, combined with a Vulkan score of 4524, makes it the better choice for anyone running general-purpose GPU workloads, machine learning inference, or rendering that leverages these APIs. The doubling of memory bandwidth to 80.00 GB/s and the higher shading unit count of 384 versus 192 give it a clear throughput advantage. Its lower transistor density of 11.5M / mm² on a 28 nm process also indicates better efficiency per clock, which translates to higher peak performance in most scenarios.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, despite losing the compute battle, has specific niches where it might be preferable. Its higher average benchmark score of 3898 and the 23rd percentile ranking suggest it is more consistent in the tests it runs. The lack of a power connector and lower TDP of 62 W make it easier to install in systems with limited power delivery. Its professional lineage, indicated by the Quadro branding, suggests it was designed for validated professional applications rather than raw gaming or compute. For a user with a legacy workstation that only needs OpenCL support and cannot accommodate a 6-pin power connector, the Quadro 2000 remains a viable option. However, for anyone comparing the two on performance alone, the data clearly favors the GTX 650.