NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two GPUs comes from different benchmark suites, which complicates direct comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has three recorded benchmark scores: 3630 in Geekbench Metal, 4071 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 4191 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 3964. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has a single recorded score of 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, giving it an average benchmark score of 3075.

Because the K2000's scores come from Geekbench compute tests and the RTX 5080 SUPER's score comes from a 3DMark gaming workload, the raw numbers are not directly comparable. However, the percentile rankings and nearest rival data provide context. The K2000 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5080 SUPER sits at the 19th percentile. This indicates that despite the RTX 5080 SUPER having vastly superior specifications, its single recorded benchmark places it lower in the overall distribution.

The K2000's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M with an average score of 3957, a 0.2% difference, and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 with an average score of 3956, also a 0.2% difference. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, a 0.3% difference, and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977, a -0.3% difference. This shows the K2000 is tightly clustered with these older mobile and desktop parts, performing essentially neck-and-neck with all of them.

The RTX 5080 SUPER's nearest rivals show a different pattern. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 2.8% higher than the RTX 5080 SUPER. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, which is 3.4% higher. Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983, which is 3.1% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967, which is 3.6% lower. The RTX 5080 SUPER sits between these two groups, slightly behind the P1000 and Arc Pro B60, while slightly ahead of the 820A and GTX 860M.

The biggest win for the K2000 is its average benchmark score of 3964 versus the RTX 5080 SUPER's 3075, a difference of 889 points. However, this comparison is misleading due to different test suites. The RTX 5080 SUPER's only recorded benchmark is a modern DX12 workload, while the K2000's scores come from older compute-focused tests. The data does not include any head-to-head benchmarks between the two, so no direct performance comparison can be made from identical workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The K2000 wins in the compute benchmark category based on recorded data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4071 and Vulkan score of 4191 are substantially higher than the RTX 5080 SUPER's single 3DMark score of 3075. The K2000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 3964 compared to 3075. This suggests the K2000 performs better in legacy compute-oriented workloads that stress OpenCL and Vulkan APIs.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins in modern gaming and graphics workloads, as evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score. This benchmark is designed for current-generation DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, and the RTX 5080 SUPER's score of 3075, while not comparable to the K2000's different test scores, demonstrates it can run this demanding workload at all. The K2000 has no recorded score for any 3DMark test, meaning no data exists for its performance in modern gaming scenarios.

The K2000 also wins in terms of benchmark coverage. It has three recorded scores across different APIs, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has only one. This gives the K2000 a more complete performance profile in the database. The K2000's percentile ranking of 24 versus the RTX 5080 SUPER's 19 also indicates the K2000 sits higher relative to all other GPUs in the database.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins in raw specification-driven capabilities that do not appear in benchmark scores. Its 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, 1.02 TB/s bandwidth, and 56.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance are all far beyond the K2000's 2 GB GDDR5, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 732.7 GFLOPS. These specifications suggest the RTX 5080 SUPER would dominate in any workload that can utilize its resources, but the recorded benchmark data does not capture this advantage in comparable tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², giving a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 120.6 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The RTX 5080 SUPER also includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores, while the K2000 has none of either. This reflects the fundamental architectural shift toward ray tracing and AI acceleration in modern GPUs.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz or 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2000 MHz or 32 Gbps effective, yielding 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER's memory bandwidth is roughly 16 times higher, and its capacity is 12 times larger.

The K2000's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS, with no recorded FP16 performance. The RTX 5080 SUPER's pixel rate is 293.1 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 879.3 GTexel/s, and its FP32 performance is 56.28 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The RTX 5080 SUPER's FP32 output is approximately 77 times higher than the K2000's.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W, is dual-slot, requires one 16-pin power connector, and has no suggested PSU listed. The K2000 measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the RTX 5080 SUPER measures 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

The bus interface differs as well. The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the RTX 5080 SUPER uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the K2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. API support shows the K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the RTX 5080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear generational divide. The Quadro K2000, released in 2013, is an end-of-life product from the Kepler era. Its average benchmark score of 3964 and 24th percentile ranking come from compute workloads that favor its older architecture. The RTX 5080 SUPER, released in 2025, is an active product from the Blackwell 2.0 era. Its average score of 3075 and 19th percentile ranking come from a single modern DX12 test.

For users running legacy compute workloads that utilize OpenCL or Vulkan, the K2000 shows higher recorded scores. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4071 and Vulkan score of 4191 are the strongest numbers in its profile. However, the K2000's 2 GB memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its usefulness in any modern context. Its DirectX support only reaches 12 (11_0), meaning it cannot run modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles.

For users running modern games or graphics applications, the RTX 5080 SUPER is the only viable choice based on its specifications. Its 24 GB GDDR7 memory, 1.02 TB/s bandwidth, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores provide capabilities the K2000 simply does not have. The RTX 5080 SUPER's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3075, while lower than the K2000's different-test scores, represents a workload the K2000 has no recorded data for.

The verdict depends entirely on workload. The K2000 wins in recorded compute benchmarks and percentile ranking. The RTX 5080 SUPER wins on every measurable specification, including shading units, memory capacity, bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance. For any modern use case, the RTX 5080 SUPER's specifications make it the clear choice. For legacy compute tasks where the K2000's recorded scores apply, it remains competitive within its narrow niche.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 3075.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory capacity?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, while the K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The RTX 5080 SUPER also has a 256-bit bus versus the K2000's 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores. The K2000 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The K2000's nearest rivals include the GeForce 830M (0.2% difference), Radeon R5 M420 (0.2%), GeForce GT 745M (0.3%), and Radeon HD 6850 X2 (-0.3%). The RTX 5080 SUPER's nearest rivals include the Quadro P1000 (-2.8%), GeForce 820A (3.1%), Intel Arc Pro B60 (-3.4%), and GeForce GTX 860M (3.6%).

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The K2000 ranks at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 5080 SUPER ranks at the 19th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 120.6M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 10,752 |

| TMUs | 32 | 336 |

| ROPs | 16 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 293.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 879.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 732.7 GFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 51 W | 415 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (L x H) | 202 mm x 111 mm | 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2025-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 999 USD |