NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The data shows a clear hierarchy between the two, with the GTX 860M dominating every benchmark where both were tested. However, the Quadro K2000M holds its own as a lower-power, professional-oriented part. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific strengths of each card based solely on the provided benchmark data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M wins all three recorded tests, with margin of victory ranging from substantial to overwhelming. The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 860M scores 9,648 against the Quadro K2000M's 2,626. This represents a delta of 267.4%, meaning the GTX 860M is more than 3.6 times faster in this compute-oriented API test. Such a massive disparity suggests the GTX 860M has far more raw compute throughput available for modern graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan's low-level hardware access.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a similar story, though slightly less extreme. The GTX 860M posts a score of 10,461, while the Quadro K2000M manages only 3,106. The delta here is 236.8%, indicating the GTX 860M delivers over three times the OpenCL performance. This is significant because OpenCL is widely used for general-purpose GPU computing, including tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, and some professional applications. For any workload that relies on OpenCL, the GTX 860M is in a different performance league entirely.

Even the closest head-to-head result, the Geekbench Metal test, shows a decisive win for the GTX 860M. It scores 4,900 versus the Quadro K2000M's 1,932, a delta of 153.6%. While this is the smallest relative margin of the three tests, the GTX 860M still more than doubles the Quadro's score. Metal is Apple's graphics API, so this result is primarily relevant for macOS environments or Hackintosh setups, but it reinforces the pattern: the GTX 860M is consistently superior in compute performance.

When looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 860M's average benchmark score is 2,967, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti with an average score of 2,953, a delta of just 0.5%, meaning the GTX 860M is essentially performance-equivalent to that desktop card in aggregate. In contrast, the Quadro K2000M's average score is 2,555, putting it in the 17th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M at 2,605, with the Quadro trailing by 1.9%. This puts the Quadro in a much lower performance tier, roughly 14% behind the GTX 860M in average score, a gap consistent with the head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is the root cause of their performance disparity. Both are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and use TSMC's 28 nm process node, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GTX 860M uses the GK104 chip, a large, high-end design with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro K2000M, by contrast, uses the GK107 chip, which is much smaller, containing only 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 10.8M per mm². This size difference translates directly into a massive difference in execution resources.

The most critical architectural difference lies in the number of shading units. The GTX 860M has 1,152 shading units, exactly three times the 384 found in the Quadro K2000M. This 3:1 ratio extends to texture mapping units, where the GTX 860M has 96 TMUs versus the Quadro's 32. Interestingly, both cards have the same number of raster output units (ROP units) at 16, which means the GTX 860M's advantage is not uniform across all pipeline stages. This suggests that pixel fill-rate-bound workloads might see a smaller gap, but compute and texture-heavy tasks will heavily favor the GTX 860M.

These resource differences manifest in the theoretical performance numbers. The GTX 860M achieves a pixel rate of 21.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 87.84 GTexel/s. The Quadro K2000M, running at lower clocks, delivers only 5.960 GPixel/s and 23.84 GTexel/s. The most telling statistic is FP32 performance: the GTX 860M produces 2.108 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K2000M manages just 572.2 GFLOPS. That is a factor of roughly 3.7 difference in raw floating-point compute, which explains the large deltas seen in the OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 860M has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 915 MHz, while the Quadro K2000M is locked at a flat 745 MHz with no boost. This lower clock speed, combined with far fewer execution units, compounds the performance gap. Memory architecture also diverges significantly. The GTX 860M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with an effective data rate of 5 Gbps, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective, resulting in only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical difference for memory-bound workloads, as the GTX 860M has nearly three times the memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M is decisively more powerful. Its FP32 output is 2.108 TFLOPS compared to the Quadro K2000M's 572.2 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 3.7x.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro K2000M wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), the GTX 860M wins all 3, with no wins recorded for the Quadro K2000M.

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

A: The GTX 860M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro K2000M has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3. This is a 51.2 GB/s difference in favor of the GTX 860M.

Q: How does the GTX 860M compare to its closest rival?

A: The GTX 860M's average benchmark score of 2,967 is 0.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, which scores 2,953. This indicates they are statistically equivalent in performance.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two cards in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 860M scores 10,461, while the Quadro K2000M scores 3,106. This yields a delta of 236.8% in favor of the GTX 860M.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both report support for DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. However, the actual performance in these APIs is vastly different, with the GTX 860M being much faster.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ. Fields that are identical, such as the 28 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 2 GB memory size, 128-bit bus width, and 16 ROPs, are omitted.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GK104 | GK107 |

| Generation | GeForce 800M | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 915 MHz | 745 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 384 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.96 GPixel/s | 5.960 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 87.84 GTexel/s | 23.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.108 TFLOPS | 572.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-09 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M wins in every measured performance category. For compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL or Vulkan, it is not merely faster but in a different class entirely, with deltas exceeding 236%. Its advantages in shading units (1,152 vs 384), texture rate (87.84 GTexel/s vs 23.84 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (2.108 TFLOPS vs 572.2 GFLOPS) make it the clear choice for any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU computing. The GTX 860M also benefits from GDDR5 memory, which provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, crucial for large data sets and high-resolution textures. For gaming, the higher pixel rate of 21.96 GPixel/s combined with the massive compute advantage means it will handle modern DirectX 11 and Vulkan titles at playable frame rates, while the Quadro would struggle.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000M's only "win" is in power consumption. Its TDP is 55 W, compared to the GTX 860M's 75 W. This 20 W difference makes the Quadro K2000M suitable for thinner, cooler-running laptops where battery life is prioritized over raw performance. Its MXM Module form factor also indicates a modular design, potentially offering easier serviceability in professional workstations. However, it is crucial to note that the Quadro K2000M does not win a single benchmark. Its 384 shading units and DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are severely limiting. It may be adequate for basic 2D desktop work or very light 3D acceleration, but any demanding graphics or compute task will cause it to fall far behind, as the 236.8% OpenCL delta demonstrates.

The Verdict

The data leads to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M is the superior GPU for nearly all purposes. Its average benchmark score of 2,967 places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000M sits lower at 2,555 and the 17th percentile. The GTX 860M is not just ahead; it is ahead by margins of 153.6% to 267.4% across all head-to-head tests. The architecture is fundamentally more capable, with three times the shading units and over three times the FP32 throughput. Anyone choosing between these two for gaming, content creation, or general compute should unequivocally select the GeForce GTX 860M. The only scenario where the Quadro K2000M makes sense is when the 55 W TDP is an absolute requirement, such as in a legacy ultra-portable workstation where maximum battery life and minimal heat output are non-negotiable, and where the user accepts a 14% reduction in average benchmark score as a trade-off for a more power-efficient part. In every other measurable way, the GTX 860M is the definitive winner.