NVIDIA Quadro 2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop graphics solutions, respectively, but the benchmark data shows a clear generational and architectural divide between them. In the single available benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3000M decisively outperforms the Quadro 2000, achieving a score of 4241 against 3898. This represents an 8.8% performance advantage for the newer K3000M, a lead that is consistent with its superior specifications and more advanced manufacturing process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is straightforward, as the data provides only a single benchmark result: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points. The K3000M wins this matchup by a margin of 8.8%, a significant difference that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their similar professional positioning.

This 8.8% lead is not merely a statistical blip; it aligns with the K3000M's placement in the broader GPU landscape. The K3000M sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 is at the 23rd percentile. While both are in the lower quartile of performance, the K3000M's higher percentile reflects its superior raw compute capability. The data shows that the K3000M is competitive with the AMD Radeon Vega 3, trailing by a negligible 0.6%, and is actually 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. In contrast, the Quadro 2000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which it beats by 0.4%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which it trails by 0.5%. The K3000M's performance is clearly closer to more modern integrated and entry-level discrete solutions, while the Quadro 2000 is anchored to an older performance class.

The deltaPct values from the nearest rivals further contextualize the win. The K3000M's 8.8% advantage over the Quadro 2000 is larger than the performance gaps between the Quadro 2000 and any of its own direct rivals, which are all within a 1.4% range. This indicates that the performance difference between the two cards in question is more substantial than the typical variation seen among their respective peers. The benchmark results indicate a clear and decisive win for the K3000M in this single test, with no benchmark data showing the Quadro 2000 taking a lead in any category.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental differences between these two GPUs stem from their respective architectures and manufacturing processes. The Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, utilizing the GK104 chip, while the Quadro 2000 is based on the older Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip. This generational leap is reflected in their process nodes: the K3000M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The newer 28 nm node allows for a significantly higher transistor density, with the K3000M packing 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter compared to the Quadro 2000's 4.9 million.

This density advantage translates directly into a massive difference in transistor count. The K3000M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000 has just 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The K3000M's die is only 23.5% larger in area, yet it houses three times as many transistors, evidence of the efficiency of the Kepler architecture and the 28 nm process. The architectural shift also brings a significant increase in execution resources. The K3000M features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the Quadro 2000 is equipped with only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This represents a 3x increase in shading units and a 2x increase in both TMUs and ROPs for the K3000M.

The memory subsystems also differ considerably. The K3000M uses a 256-bit memory bus, which is double the width of the Quadro 2000's 128-bit bus. This, combined with a slightly higher effective memory clock of 2.8 Gbps versus 2.6 Gbps, results in a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s for the K3000M, more than double the Quadro 2000's 41.60 GB/s. Both cards use GDDR5 memory, but the K3000M has 2 GB of it, while the Quadro 2000 has only 1024 MB. In terms of API support, the K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 lists no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K3000M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation, while the Quadro 2000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, and their predecessors and successors reflect this lineage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score, the Quadro K3000M or the Quadro 2000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a significantly higher Geekbench OpenCL score of 4241, compared to the Quadro 2000's score of 3898. This gives the K3000M an 8.8% performance lead in this benchmark.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths of these two cards compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s, which is more than double the 41.60 GB/s of the Quadro 2000. This is due to the K3000M's wider 256-bit memory bus and faster effective memory clock of 2.8 Gbps.

Q: What are the differences in their shading unit counts?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the Quadro 2000 has only 192. This is a 3x difference in raw shader processing capability, which directly contributes to the K3000M's higher compute performance.

Q: Is there a difference in process node between the two GPUs?

A: Yes, the Quadro K3000M is built on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process. This allows the K3000M to have a much higher transistor density of 12.0M per mm² compared to 4.9M per mm².

Q: Which card has a larger memory capacity?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory found on the Quadro 2000.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the data shows no Vulkan support for the Quadro 2000. In contrast, the Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

This section highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs, excluding fields where they are identical or absent from the data.

• Architecture: The Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro 2000 uses the Fermi architecture.
• Chip: The K3000M is based on the GK104 chip; the Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip.
• Process Node: The K3000M is manufactured on a 28 nm process, versus the Quadro 2000's 40 nm process.
• Transistors: The K3000M has 3,540 million transistors, compared to the Quadro 2000's 1,170 million.
• Die Size: The K3000M has a die size of 294 mm², while the Quadro 2000's die is 238 mm².
• Transistor Density: The K3000M has a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², versus 4.9M for the Quadro 2000.
• Memory Size: The K3000M has 2 GB of memory; the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB.
• Memory Bus Width: The K3000M has a 256-bit bus; the Quadro 2000 has a 128-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro 2000 offers 41.60 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: The K3000M has an effective memory clock of 2.8 Gbps, compared to 2.6 Gbps on the Quadro 2000.
• Shading Units: The K3000M has 576 shading units; the Quadro 2000 has 192.
• TMUs: The K3000M has 48 TMUs; the Quadro 2000 has 32.
• ROPs: The K3000M has 32 ROPs; the Quadro 2000 has 16.
• Pixel Rate: The K3000M has a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s, versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000.
• Texture Rate: The K3000M has a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s, versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000.
• FP32 Performance: The K3000M has 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000.
• TDP: The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 2000 has a lower TDP of 62 W.
• Slot Width: The K3000M is an MXM Module, while the Quadro 2000 is a Single-slot card.
• Bus Interface: The K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0); the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: The K3000M has Portable Device Dependent outputs, while the Quadro 2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.
• Dimensions: The Quadro 2000 has a length of 178 mm and a height of 111 mm; the K3000M's dimensions are not specified.
• Vulkan Support: The K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support.
• Suggested PSU: The Quadro 2000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W; no suggestion is given for the K3000M.
• Release Date: The K3000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the Quadro 2000 was released on 2010-12-23.
• Launch MSRP: The Quadro 2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The K3000M has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the superior performer. Its 8.8% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is backed by a comprehensive specification advantage across the board. The K3000M offers more than double the memory bandwidth, triple the shading units, and a 56.9% higher FP32 compute throughput (753.4 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS) compared to the Quadro 2000. The data shows that the K3000M is the faster, more capable professional GPU.

The Quadro 2000 does have a few points in its favor, but they are not performance-related. It has a lower TDP of 62 W compared to the K3000M's 75 W, and it is a single-slot card with a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), whereas the K3000M is an MXM module whose outputs depend on the host device. The Quadro 2000 also has a longer history, having been released in December 2010, nearly a year and a half before the K3000M's May 2012 launch. However, for any task that relies on compute performance, the K3000M is the clear choice. The Quadro 2000's only listed advantage is its lower power draw, which might be relevant in power-constrained desktop environments.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark and specification data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in nearly every measurable category. It is the definitive winner in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its higher Geekbench OpenCL score. It also wins in memory-heavy workloads due to its 89.60 GB/s bandwidth and 2 GB capacity, which is double that of the Quadro 2000. The K3000M's higher pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s) suggest it will also handle fill-rate-limited tasks more effectively. For users requiring Vulkan support, the K3000M is the only option of the two.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000's wins are limited to operational characteristics rather than performance. It has a lower TDP of 62 W, making it a more power-efficient choice for a desktop workstation. Its fixed single-slot design with built-in DVI and DisplayPort outputs makes it a straightforward, self-contained solution for a desktop system, whereas the K3000M's MXM form factor requires a compatible laptop or mobile workstation chassis. The Quadro 2000 also holds the advantage of a lower launch MSRP of 599 USD, though this is a historical fact rather than a current market comparison. In summary, the K3000M wins on performance, while the Quadro 2000 wins on power consumption and desktop integration simplicity.