NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the dominant performer in every benchmark where both cards were measured. It wins both head-to-head tests by a wide margin, and its average benchmark score of 4628 sits meaningfully above the Quadro K2000's 3964 average. The GTX 970M also holds a slightly higher overall percentile ranking at 27 versus the Quadro K2000's 24, placing it in a higher tier of the database's GPU rankings.

For any workload that relies on raw compute or graphics throughput, the GTX 970M is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18946 is roughly 4.7 times higher than the Quadro K2000's 4071, and its Vulkan score of 18292 is similarly overwhelming against the K2000's 4191. The Quadro K2000 does not win a single recorded benchmark in this comparison.

However, the Quadro K2000 is not without a rationale for its existence. It is a single-slot, low-power professional card with a 51 W TDP and a suggested PSU of only 250 W. It also offers a specific display output configuration with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, and its launch MSRP was 599 USD. For a system builder needing a compact, low-power workstation card with professional driver validation, the K2000 remains a viable option. But for anyone prioritizing performance, the GTX 970M wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and target different segments. The GTX 970M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, while the Quadro K2000 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The GM204 die in the GTX 970M is substantially larger at 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors. The GK107 die in the Quadro K2000 is only 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors. This difference in scale is reflected in every compute metric. The GTX 970M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K2000 is far more modest with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 970M runs at a base clock of 924 MHz with a boost clock of 1038 MHz. The K2000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks show the GTX 970M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the K2000's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration heavily favors the GTX 970M. It ships with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, giving it 64.00 GB/s. That is roughly half the bandwidth, which directly impacts high-resolution texturing and large data set workloads.

The pixel rate tells a similar story: the GTX 970M delivers 49.82 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000. Texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 2.657 TFLOPS for the GTX 970M versus 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000, a roughly 3.6x gap.

API support also differs. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970M's higher DirectX feature level matters for modern game workloads.

Physical specifications diverge. The GTX 970M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors. The K2000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K2000 has a 51 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 970M has no recorded TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins in essentially every performance category recorded in the database. In OpenCL compute, it scores 18946 versus 4071 for the K2000, a 365.4% advantage. In Vulkan, it scores 18292 versus 4191, a 336.5% lead. These are not marginal differences; they represent a completely different performance class.

The GTX 970M also wins on memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, texture throughput, and raw FP32 compute. With 6 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, it can handle larger textures and larger working sets. Its 192-bit memory bus provides 120.3 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, which is critical for bandwidth-hungry tasks like high-resolution rendering or large compute kernels.

The Quadro K2000's only advantages are in areas unrelated to raw speed. It is a single-slot card with a lower 51 W TDP, making it easier to fit into compact workstations. It has a dedicated display output configuration with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, which is useful for multi-monitor professional setups. It also has a documented 250 W suggested PSU requirement, making it suitable for systems with modest power supplies. Its launch MSRP was 599 USD, but pricing is not a factor in this analysis.

For gaming, content creation, or any GPU-accelerated compute task, the GTX 970M is the only sensible pick from this data. The K2000 makes sense only in a narrow professional workstation context where its form factor, power envelope, and output configuration are prioritized over performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M has an average benchmark score of 4628, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. The GTX 970M scores about 16.7% higher on average.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970M in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18946 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 4071 for the Quadro K2000. This represents a 365.4% advantage for the GTX 970M.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000 beat the GTX 970M in any benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 970M wins both tests. The wins count is 2 for the GTX 970M and 0 for the Quadro K2000.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these cards?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 970M is an MXM module using an MXM-B (3.0) interface, designed for laptops and portable devices. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 202 mm by 111 mm, designed for desktop workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database contains two benchmark comparisons, and both show a decisive victory for the GTX 970M.

The first test is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 970M scores 18946, while the Quadro K2000 scores 4071. The delta is 365.4% in favor of the GTX 970M. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of tasks, and the result is not close. The GTX 970M's 1280 shading units and 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute simply overwhelm the K2000's 384 shading units and 732.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 970M also benefits from 120.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s, which helps in memory-bound OpenCL workloads.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the GTX 970M scores 18292, and the Quadro K2000 scores 4191. The delta is 336.5% in favor of the GTX 970M. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the GTX 970M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with Vulkan 1.4 support is far better suited to it than the K2000's Kepler architecture with Vulkan 1.2.175. The K2000's lower pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s also hold it back in any graphics-heavy Vulkan workload.

The database records 2 wins for the GTX 970M and 0 wins for the Quadro K2000. There are no benchmark tests in which the K2000 comes out ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 970M has a more extensive benchmark profile. It was tested in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (scoring 472), Geekbench OpenCL (18946), Geekbench Vulkan (18292), Passmark DirectX 10 (28), Passmark DirectX 11 (42), Passmark DirectX 12 (24), Passmark DirectX 9 (99), Passmark G2D (381), Passmark G3D (5704), and Passmark GPU Compute (2289). The Quadro K2000 was only tested in Geekbench Metal (3630), Geekbench OpenCL (4071), and Geekbench Vulkan (4191).

The GTX 970M's Passmark G3D score of 5704 is particularly notable, as it reflects strong DirectX performance across multiple versions. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2289 also shows solid compute capabilities. The Quadro K2000 has no comparable Passmark data in the database, so direct comparisons in those tests are not possible.

In terms of relative positioning, the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database, just above its nearest rival the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M which averages 4621 (a 0.2% delta). The Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile, with its nearest rival the NVIDIA GeForce 830M averaging 3957 (a 0.2% delta). The GTX 970M's nearest rivals also include the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, both averaging 4657 (a -0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 averaging 4577 (a 1.1% delta). The K2000's other nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (-0.3% delta).

These rival comparisons show that both cards are clustered with other modest performers in the database, but the GTX 970M sits in a higher performance band overall. The 664-point gap in average score between the two cards is substantial, and it aligns with the massive deltas seen in the direct head-to-head tests. The conclusion from the recorded data is straightforward: the GTX 970M is the superior GPU by a wide margin, and the Quadro K2000's only distinguishing features are its low power draw, compact single-slot form factor, and professional display outputs.