NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The GTX 970M scores 18,946 points, while the Quadro K2000D manages 3,919 points. That is a 383.4% advantage for the GTX 970M, a gap so wide that it effectively places the two cards in completely different performance tiers.

Looking at the broader database context reinforces this separation. The GTX 970M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4,628, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival in the database, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, averages 4,621, a delta of just 0.2%, meaning the GTX 970M and that professional mobile GPU are essentially performance equals. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB both average 4,657, which puts them 0.6% ahead of the GTX 970M, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 trails by 1.1% with an average of 4,577.

The Quadro K2000D, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3,919, good for the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3,930, which sits 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 averages 3,898, a 0.5% deficit. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M is 0.9% ahead at 3,953, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics trails by 0.9% at 3,883.

The raw OpenCL comparison tells the story simply: the GTX 970M is roughly 4.8 times faster than the Quadro K2000D in that workload. No other shared benchmark exists in the database, so this single data point carries the weight of the head-to-head comparison. The GTX 970M wins the only recorded head-to-head test, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains the performance disparity. The GTX 970M is built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip with the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the node itself is not a differentiator.

The transistor counts, however, tell a story of scale. The GTX 970M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K2000D has just 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The GTX 970M has more than four times the transistor count and more than three times the die area.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the GTX 970M has 3.3 times the shaders, 2.5 times the texture units, and 3 times the ROPs.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 970M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 1,038 MHz. The Quadro K2000D has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, but its memory clock runs at 1,000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The GTX 970M runs memory at 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The GTX 970M comes with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 970M has triple the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

The resulting fill rates and compute throughput show the practical impact. The GTX 970M achieves 49.82 GPixel/s pixel rate and 83.04 GTexel/s texture rate, with 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Quadro K2000D manages 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, with 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32. The GTX 970M is roughly 6.5 times faster in pixel throughput and 2.7 times faster in texture throughput.

API support also differs. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards are end-of-life products, but the GTX 970M comes from the GeForce 900M generation, while the Quadro K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins in virtually every measurable category. Its only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is a 383.4% victory. In compute-heavy workloads, the 2.657 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 732.7 GFLOPS means the GTX 970M is the clear choice for OpenCL acceleration, GPU compute tasks, or any workload that scales with shading unit count.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive advantage. The GTX 970M's 120.3 GB/s versus the Quadro K2000D's 64.00 GB/s means that memory-bound tasks, such as large texture streaming or high-resolution framebuffer operations, will run dramatically better on the GTX 970M. The 6 GB capacity versus 2 GB also allows the GTX 970M to hold larger datasets in VRAM without spilling to system memory.

The Quadro K2000D does have some advantages, though they are not performance-related. Its 51 W TDP is modest, and it requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for systems with limited power headroom. It is a single-slot card with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, and it uses PCIe 2.0 x16, which is compatible with older platforms. The GTX 970M uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, which means it is designed for laptops and other modular systems rather than desktop towers.

Display connectivity also differs. The Quadro K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is a fixed configuration suitable for multi-monitor professional workstations. The GTX 970M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the actual ports depend on the laptop or mobile workstation it is installed in.

The Quadro K2000D's launch MSRP was 599 USD. The GTX 970M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

For professional workstation use where driver certification and fixed display outputs matter, the Quadro K2000D has a niche. For raw performance, the GTX 970M is in a different league. The data shows no benchmark where the Quadro K2000D wins.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K2000D scores 3,919, giving the GTX 970M a 383.4% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, while the Quadro K2000D has 384. The GTX 970M also has 80 TMUs and 48 ROPs compared to 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the Quadro K2000D.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power requirement for the Quadro K2000D?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a 51 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 970M has no TDP or suggested PSU recorded in the database.

Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 970M averages 4,628 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K2000D averages 3,919, placing it in the 23rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 (Maxwell 2.0) | GK107 (Kepler) |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 924 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1,038 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.3 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,280 | 384 |

| TMUs | 80 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.82 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.04 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.657 TFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 51 W |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | Not recorded | 202 mm (8 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 599 USD |

The specification table shows that the GTX 970M is the newer, larger, and more powerful part in nearly every respect. The Quadro K2000D is a compact, low-power workstation card from an earlier generation. The GTX 970M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture brings newer feature support, more compute resources, and significantly higher memory throughput, while the Quadro K2000D's Kepler architecture is limited to older API versions and a fraction of the compute capability. The form factor difference is critical: the GTX 970M is a mobile MXM module, while the Quadro K2000D is a desktop single-slot PCIe card. These are different tools for different platforms, but on raw performance, the GTX 970M dominates the recorded data.