GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 are both Kepler-era parts from TSMC’s 28nm process, but they target different corners of the market. The data shows a clear performance gap in compute workloads, yet the two cards occupy nearly identical positions in the overall GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a definitive result. The GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545 points, while the Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. That translates to a 13.8% advantage for the GTX 650, which is a substantial margin in a single compute test. The GTX 650 wins the only head-to-head matchup, giving it a 1-0 record in wins.

Breaking down the underlying specifications explains why. The GTX 650’s GK106 chip carries 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, compared to the Quadro’s GK107 with 1,270 million transistors on 118 mm². The GTX 650’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the Quadro, producing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth against 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 650 also posts higher peak rates across the board: 8.464 GPixel/s pixel fill versus 7.632 GPixel/s, and 33.86 GTexel/s texture fill versus 30.53 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern, with the GTX 650 reaching 812.5 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro’s 732.7 GFLOPS.

Despite this loss, the Quadro K2000D is not far behind in the broader competitive field. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, averages 3930 points, putting the K2000D just 0.3% behind. The Quadro 2000 sits 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics trails by 0.9%. The K2000D actually beats the Radeon R5 Graphics by 0.9% in this comparison. Meanwhile, the GTX 650’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce MX110, which scores 3834 points, a 0.3% gap. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 sits 0.8% behind the GTX 650, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics leads the GTX 650 by 1.5%.

The overall percentiles tell a similar story. The Quadro K2000D lands at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 650 sits at the 22nd percentile. For practical purposes, these two cards are in the same performance tier, though the GTX 650 has the edge in raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

From a pure benchmark perspective, the GeForce GTX 650 is the faster card. Its 13.8% lead in OpenCL performance is the only head-to-head data point, and it wins decisively. The GTX 650 also delivers higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel and texture rates, and greater FP32 throughput. If the sole criterion is compute performance, the GTX 650 is the clear choice.

However, the Quadro K2000D is not without its arguments. It carries the Quadro branding, which historically signals professional-grade validation and driver support, though the the benchmark database does not include specific ISV certification data. The K2000D also offers 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB on the GTX 650, which could matter for certain workloads that require larger framebuffers. Its launch MSRP was 599 USD, a figure worth noting given the performance delta.

The data does not support a blanket recommendation for either card. The GTX 650 wins on speed, but the K2000D wins on memory capacity and professional positioning. Users who prioritize raw compute should pick the GTX 650. Users who need the extra video memory and the Quadro ecosystem should consider the K2000D, accepting the 13.8% compute penalty.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 650 dominates in every measured performance metric. It has higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s), higher pixel rate (8.464 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (33.86 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (812.5 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS). In OpenCL compute tasks, it outperforms the Quadro by 13.8%. It also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which may affect bandwidth-sensitive workloads on modern platforms.

The Quadro K2000D wins on memory capacity, offering 2 GB against the GTX 650’s 1 GB. This could be decisive for applications that exceed 1 GB of framebuffer usage, such as certain rendering or visualization tasks. The K2000D also has a lower TDP at 51 W versus 65 W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the GTX 650 needs a single 6-pin connector. The K2000D’s display outputs include 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 650 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, a difference in output configuration that may influence multi-monitor setups.

The Quadro’s transistor density is slightly lower at 10.8M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² on the GTX 650, reflecting the larger and more complex GK106 die. The GTX 650 is also shorter at 147 mm (5.8 inches) versus 202 mm (8 inches) for the Quadro, which may matter for small-form-factor builds.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. The GTX 650 leads by 13.8%.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce GTX 650 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 650 delivers 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to 64.00 GB/s on the Quadro K2000D. The GTX 650’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, but they use different chips. The Quadro K2000D uses GK107, while the GTX 650 uses GK106.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 650 has a TDP of 65 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W.

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

A: The Quadro K2000D is 0.3% behind the Quadro 2000D and 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 2000. The GTX 650 is 0.3% behind the GeForce MX110 and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share the Kepler architecture and the 28nm TSMC process, but their chips diverge significantly. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip, which contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The GeForce GTX 650 uses the GK106 chip, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, exactly double the transistor count and nearly double the die area. Transistor density is slightly higher on the GTX 650 at 11.5M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm².

Both cards have identical core configurations: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. Neither card includes RT cores or tensor cores, as these predate the ray-tracing era. The GTX 650’s higher clock rates on memory (1250 MHz versus 1000 MHz) and its larger chip enable higher fill rates and compute throughput, as reflected in the benchmark results.

The GTX 650 uses the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K2000D is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. This could impact data transfer speeds in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the practical difference depends on the system. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API-level compatibility is identical.

Power delivery differs notably. The Quadro K2000D draws 51 W and needs no external power connector, making it a drop-in card for many systems. The GTX 650 draws 65 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, which adds a cable requirement. The Quadro is also a longer card at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 147 mm (5.8 inches) for the GTX 650, though both are single-slot designs.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 650 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The production status for both is end-of-life, with the Quadro released on 2013-02-28 and the GTX 650 on 2013-11-26. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the GTX 650’s predecessor is GeForce 500 and its successor is GeForce 700.