NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the only shared benchmark between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4071 versus the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 4.4% advantage.

Q: How do these cards compare in overall GPU percentile rankings?

A: The Quadro K2000 sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits in the 23rd percentile. This places both cards in the lower tier of overall performance, with the K2000 holding a slight edge.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average benchmark scores?

A: The K2000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (avg score 3957, 0.2% gap), while the Quadro 2000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (avg score 3883, 0.4% gap).

Q: Do both cards use the same memory type and bus width?

A: Yes, both use GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the K2000 has 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB (1024 MB) on the Quadro 2000, and the K2000's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on the older card.

Q: Which card has more shading units and what does that mean for compute workloads?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, exactly double the 192 found on the Quadro 2000. This directly contributes to the K2000's higher FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Are there any differences in API support between the two generations?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K2000 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K2000 is built on the GK107 chip using the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip with the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm TSMC process. This process shrink allows the K2000 to pack 1,270 million transistors into a much smaller 118 mm² die, whereas the Quadro 2000 requires 238 mm² for its 1,170 million transistors. The resulting transistor density tells the story: the K2000 achieves 10.8M transistors per mm² versus just 4.9M on the Fermi part.

The Kepler generation brought a substantial increase in shading units — 384 on the K2000 versus 192 on the Quadro 2000. Both cards share identical TMU counts (32) and ROP counts (16), but the clock efficiency of the newer architecture shows in the texture and pixel rates. The K2000 delivers 30.53 GTexel/s and 7.632 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000 manages 20.00 GTexel/s and 5.000 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs in capacity and speed. The K2000 features 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), producing 41.60 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus. The K2000 also adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely.

Power efficiency is a clear generational improvement. The K2000 consumes 51 W TDP versus 62 W for the Quadro 2000, despite delivering significantly higher compute performance. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and share the same 250 W suggested PSU, but the K2000 is longer at 202 mm versus 178 mm for the Quadro 2000. Both are 111 mm in height.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every measurable category in this comparison. It takes the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 4.4% margin. It also holds advantages in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, pixel fill rate, and texture fill rate. For any workload that relies on FP32 compute — such as CUDA-based simulation, rendering, or scientific processing — the K2000's 732.7 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS represents a substantial performance gap.

The Quadro 2000's only "win" is the release date. It launched in December 2010, more than two years before the K2000's February 2013 debut. For legacy software compatibility or systems that predate Kepler, the Quadro 2000 might be the only option that fits. It is also shorter at 178 mm versus 202 mm, which could matter in cramped chassis. However, in pure performance terms, the data shows no category where the Quadro 2000 outperforms the K2000.

The K2000's doubled memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) makes it the better choice for texture-heavy workloads or larger datasets that exceed 1 GB. The extra shading units and higher memory clock also give it a clear edge in parallel compute tasks. The Quadro 2000 remains a capable entry-level workstation card for its era, but it is outclassed on every benchmark metric available in this data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| Chip | GK107 | GF106 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 62 W |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 178 mm (7 inches) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2010-12-23 |

Both cards share the same manufacturer (NVIDIA), foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), TMU count (32), ROP count (16), slot width (single-slot), power connector configuration (none), suggested PSU (250 W), bus interface (PCIe 2.0 x16), display output configuration (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), DirectX support (12 (11_0)), OpenGL support (4.6), height (111 mm), production status (end-of-life), and launch MSRP (599 USD).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark shared between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 4.4% improvement. While that percentage may seem modest, it is consistent with the underlying hardware differences. The K2000 has double the shading units, substantially higher memory clocks, and a much more efficient architecture. The 4.4% margin in OpenCL likely understates the gap in workloads that are more sensitive to memory bandwidth or shader throughput.

Looking at the average benchmark scores reinforces this picture. The K2000 averages 3964 across all its benchmark tests (including Geekbench Metal at 3630 and Vulkan at 4191), while the Quadro 2000 averages 3898 from its single OpenCL result. The K2000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, scores 3957 — just 0.2% behind. The Quadro 2000's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, scores 3883, putting the Quadro 2000 just 0.4% ahead. In the broader context, both cards occupy nearly the same percentile band (24th versus 23rd), meaning neither is a performance powerhouse by modern standards.

The K2000 also wins decisively on theoretical peak rates. Its FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS is 52.6% higher than the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. Texture rate is 52.7% higher (30.53 versus 20.00 GTexel/s), and pixel rate is 52.6% higher (7.632 versus 5.000 GPixel/s). Memory bandwidth is 53.8% higher (64.00 versus 41.60 GB/s). These consistent margins across all compute metrics suggest the 4.4% OpenCL delta is not representative of the full performance gap — real-world compute workloads that scale with shader count or bandwidth should show far larger differences.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 outperforms the Quadro 2000 in every measured category. It wins the only direct benchmark by 4.4%, has double the shading units, 53% more memory bandwidth, 52% higher FP32 throughput, and does all of this while consuming 11 W less power. The K2000's 2 GB frame buffer is also double the Quadro 2000's 1 GB, which matters for any workload that approaches memory capacity limits.

Choose the Quadro K2000 if you need the better performer. It is the newer architecture, the faster card, and the more power-efficient option. For CUDA compute, OpenCL workloads, or any modern workstation task, the K2000 is the clear pick. Its Vulkan support also future-proofs it for applications that leverage that API, something the Quadro 2000 cannot offer.

Choose the Quadro 2000 only if you have a specific constraint that rules out the K2000. It is 24 mm shorter, which could be critical in a tight chassis. It also launched earlier (December 2010 versus February 2013), so if you need a drop-in replacement for a legacy Fermi-era system with identical dimensions, it may be the safer bet. However, be aware that you are accepting a 4.4% benchmark deficit, half the shading units, 35.6% less memory bandwidth, and half the VRAM.

Neither card is competitive by modern standards — both sit in the low 20s percentile ranking. But between these two specific options, the K2000 is the superior product in essentially every way that matters for performance. The 599 USD launch MSRP is identical for both, which makes the K2000 the obvious choice on paper. The Quadro 2000's only real advantages are its shorter length and earlier availability, neither of which helps in a performance comparison.