NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop workstation GPUs, respectively, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA’s architecture. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison in Geekbench OpenCL, where the K2100M decisively outperforms the older Quadro 2000. The K2100M scores 4587 points, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points, resulting in a 17.7% delta in favor of the newer card. This is a substantial generational leap, placing the K2100M in a higher performance tier despite its mobile-oriented MXM form factor. The Quadro 2000’s only benchmark result is that OpenCL score, and with an average benchmark score of 3898, it sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. The K2100M, with an average of 4151, sits at the 25th percentile, showing that while both are low in the overall hierarchy, the K2100M holds a clear edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M. The K2100M produces a score of 4587, which is 17.7% higher than the Quadro 2000’s 3898. This margin is significant for professional workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration, as it translates to noticeably faster compute performance in applications like video encoding or physics simulations that can offload to the GPU. The K2100M’s victory here is consistent with its newer architecture and higher transistor count, which we will explore in later sections. While there are no other shared benchmarks in the data, the K2100M’s additional benchmark scores in Geekbench Metal (3524) and Vulkan (4343) show that it has a broader software compatibility footprint, though those cannot be directly compared to the Quadro 2000.

Looking at the rival landscape, the K2100M’s average score of 4151 places it 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), but it is 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075). This suggests the K2100M performs in a similar bracket to entry-level discrete and integrated solutions from its era. In contrast, the Quadro 2000’s average score of 3898 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), but 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930), and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953). The data indicates the Quadro 2000 is a slightly below-average performer even among its closest peers, whereas the K2100M is more competitive within its own peer group.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it scores 4587, which is 17.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s score of 3898.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their closest rivals in terms of average benchmark scores?

A: The K2100M’s average benchmark score is 4151, placing it within 1% of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075) by 1.9%. The Quadro 2000’s average score is 3898, which is 0.5% behind the Quadro K2000D (3919) and 0.8% behind the Quadro 2000D (3930).

A: Does the Quadro K2100M support newer graphics APIs than the Quadro 2000?

Q: Yes, the K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The K2100M has a pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the Quadro 2000’s 5.000 GPixel/s. This suggests the K2100M can handle higher resolutions and more complex pixel shading more efficiently.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K2100M has a lower TDP of 55 W, while the Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W. The Quadro 2000 also lists a suggested power supply of 250 W, whereas the K2100M does not specify one.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their performance gap. The K2100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node allows for a transistor density of 11.5M per mm², packing 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro 2000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This older process yields a transistor density of only 4.9M per mm², with 1,170 million transistors on a slightly larger 238 mm² die. The Kepler architecture is inherently more efficient, allowing the K2100M to deliver higher performance while consuming less power.

The compute core configurations differ drastically. The K2100M features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This tripling of shading units is the primary reason for the K2100M’s superior compute performance. The texture rate tells a similar story: the K2100M achieves 32.02 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 only reaches 20.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is also heavily in favor of the K2100M, with 768.4 GFLOPS compared to 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000. This indicates that the K2100M is not just a minor refresh but a complete architectural overhaul that yields significantly more parallel processing capability.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards show clear divergences in nearly every category. The K2100M has a base and boost clock of 667 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The K2100M’s memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), giving it a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s versus the Quadro 2000’s 41.60 GB/s. Memory capacity doubles from 1024 MB to 2 GB on the K2100M, which is crucial for holding larger textures and datasets in professional applications.

The physical specifications are also distinct. The K2100M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, designed for laptops and mobile workstations. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card for desktops, with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The K2100M has no power connectors, while the Quadro 2000 also has none, but the Quadro 2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs differ as well: the K2100M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro 2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The K2100M is also newer, with a release date of 2013-07-22, compared to the Quadro 2000’s 2010-12-23. The Quadro 2000 does have a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated as its launch MSRP, while the K2100M has no listed MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in all measurable performance categories. It is the only card with a win in the head-to-head benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its higher pixel rate (8.004 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.02 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s) make it the better choice for any workload that is fill-rate limited, such as high-resolution 3D rendering or complex shader effects. The doubled memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB) and higher bandwidth (48.13 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s) give it an advantage in texture-heavy scenes and larger data sets. Additionally, the K2100M supports Vulkan, a modern API that the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely, making it more future-proof for software that adopts this standard.

The Quadro 2000’s advantages are limited to its form factor and legacy compatibility. As a desktop single-slot card, it is easier to install in a standard tower case than the K2100M’s proprietary MXM module, which requires a compatible laptop motherboard. The Quadro 2000 also has fixed display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort), whereas the K2100M’s outputs depend on the host device. For users running legacy software that only supports older drivers or that is optimized for Fermi architecture, the Quadro 2000 might be a safer bet, but the benchmark data provides no evidence that it wins in any performance test. The Quadro 2000 also has a lower average benchmark score (3898) and a lower percentile ranking (23rd vs 25th), indicating it is weaker overall.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins the only available benchmark by a margin of 17.7%, and its architectural advantages in shading units, memory bandwidth, and fill rates make it the better choice for any modern professional workload that can utilize OpenCL, Vulkan, or even DirectX 12. The K2100M’s lower TDP of 55 W versus 62 W also means it achieves this higher performance while consuming less power, a hallmark of the more efficient 28 nm Kepler process versus the 40 nm Fermi process.

The Quadro 2000, however, is not without a niche. Its desktop PCIe form factor and standard display outputs make it a drop-in upgrade for older workstations that require a familiar installation process. For users who specifically need a single-slot desktop card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs and do not require the extra compute performance, the Quadro 2000 remains a functional, if dated, option. Its launch MSRP of 599 USD was competitive at its release, but the performance gap to the K2100M is too wide to recommend it for any task where the K2100M can be installed. In short, if the system can accept an MXM module, the K2100M is the clear winner. If only a PCIe card is acceptable, the Quadro 2000 still works, but it is a generation behind in every measurable way.