NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are two professional workstation graphics cards separated by a generation of GPU architecture. The K2000D, based on the Kepler design, edges out the older Fermi-based Quadro 2000 in raw compute, but the data reveals a closer contest than the generational gap might suggest. Both cards target the same entry-level professional segment, yet their architectural differences create distinct performance and feature profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points. This gives the K2000D a narrow 0.5% lead in the head-to-head matchup, making it the winner of the sole benchmark comparison. The performance difference is marginal, translating to a single win for the K2000D and zero for the Quadro 2000.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both cards sit in a tight cluster of similarly performing GPUs. The Quadro K2000D’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, which scores 3930 points, putting the K2000D 0.3% behind that card. The K2000D also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, which scores 3953 points, by 0.9%. However, the K2000D holds a 0.5% advantage over the Quadro 2000 and a 0.9% lead over the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883 points.

For the Quadro 2000, the data shows it is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics but 0.5% behind the Quadro K2000D, 0.8% behind the Quadro 2000D, and 1.4% behind the GeForce GT 745M. These deltas are all within a narrow band of roughly 2%, indicating that all five GPUs deliver essentially equivalent OpenCL compute performance. The 21-point difference between the K2000D and the Quadro 2000 is well within normal run-to-run variance for benchmark testing, meaning real-world performance differences would be imperceptible in most workloads.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Quadro K2000D is marginally faster in compute performance, but the difference is so small that it should not be the primary factor in a purchasing decision. Both cards occupy the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning they perform similarly to the majority of graphics cards on the market but lag behind higher-end workstation and gaming solutions.

The Quadro K2000D wins the compute race with its 0.5% lead in OpenCL performance. It also offers twice the memory capacity, with 2 GB versus 1 GB, and significantly higher memory bandwidth. For users who work with larger datasets or higher-resolution textures, the K2000D’s additional memory could provide a tangible benefit that the benchmark numbers do not capture. The K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed, making the K2000D the more future-proof choice for applications that leverage modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro 2000, despite being the older architecture, remains competitive in raw compute. Its 3898 OpenCL score is only 0.5% behind the K2000D, and it matches the K2000D in several key specifications, including a 128-bit memory bus, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. However, its lower memory bandwidth, smaller frame buffer, and lack of Vulkan support make it the weaker choice for modern professional workloads. The data suggests that the Quadro K2000D is the better card for nearly all use cases, with the Quadro 2000 being a viable option only if it is available at a significant discount and the workload is limited to older applications.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent a generational shift in NVIDIA’s professional GPU lineup. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process node. In contrast, the Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip based on the older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process. This process shrink allows the K2000D to pack 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000 contains 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Kepler architecture in the K2000D delivers significantly higher compute throughput. The K2000D features 384 shading units, double the Quadro 2000’s 192. This results in the K2000D producing 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000. The K2000D also achieves higher pixel and texture rates, with 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s respectively, versus 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000. Memory speeds also improved substantially, with the K2000D’s memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000.

Despite the performance advantages, the K2000D is more power-efficient. It consumes 51 W under load, compared to 62 W for the Quadro 2000, and both cards require a suggested power supply of 250 W. Both are single-slot cards with no additional power connectors, making them suitable for compact workstations. The K2000D is slightly longer at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 178 mm (7 inches) for the Quadro 2000, but both share the same 111 mm (4.4 inches) height.

The display outputs differ between the two cards. The K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro 2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2000D adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the Quadro 2000 lacks. The Quadro 2000 was released on 2010-12-23, while the K2000D arrived later on 2013-02-28, and both are now end-of-life products with the same launch MSRP of 599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 0.5% higher than the Quadro 2000’s 3898 points, making the K2000D the faster card in this test.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K2000D comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Do these cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, only the Quadro K2000D supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, while the Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W. Both cards are single-slot designs with no additional power connectors and require a suggested 250 W power supply.

Q: How does the Quadro K2000D compare to its closest rival, the Quadro 2000D?

A: The Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points, which is 0.3% behind the Quadro 2000D’s score of 3930 points. This makes the Quadro 2000D slightly faster in OpenCL compute.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro K2000D is more power-efficient, consuming 51 W compared to the Quadro 2000’s 62 W, while delivering higher compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2000D: The K2000D wins in raw compute performance, delivering 0.5% higher OpenCL scores than the Quadro 2000. It also wins on memory capacity with 2 GB versus 1 GB, and memory bandwidth with 64.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. The K2000D has double the shading units (384 vs 192) and produces significantly more FP32 compute at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. It wins on power efficiency with a 51 W TDP versus 62 W, and it is the only card of the two with Vulkan support. The K2000D also offers more display outputs with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000: The Quadro 2000 wins on physical size, being shorter at 178 mm (7 inches) versus 202 mm (8 inches) for the K2000D. It also provides 2x DisplayPort outputs versus the K2000D’s single mini-DisplayPort, which may be preferable for setups using standard DisplayPort cables. The Quadro 2000 matches the K2000D on texture mapping units (32), raster output units (16), and memory bus width (128-bit). In benchmark performance, the Quadro 2000 is only 0.5% behind the K2000D, and it is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, showing it remains competitive in its class. For users with older applications that do not utilize Vulkan or require large frame buffers, the Quadro 2000 remains a functional choice, provided its lower memory bandwidth and compute throughput are acceptable.