NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA architecture. The K2000, built on the 28 nm Kepler design, offers a modern feature set and higher raw compute performance. The 2000D, based on the older 40 nm Fermi architecture, is a more basic card with fewer processing cores and less memory bandwidth. Benchmark data shows the K2000 leads in the only shared test, but the 2000D remains a viable option for legacy systems requiring its specific DVI-only output configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. This places the K2000 in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, one point above the 2000D's 23rd percentile.

Q: How significant is the performance gap in the shared OpenCL test?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the K2000 scores 4071 against the 2000D's 3930, a delta of 3.6%. This is a modest but clear advantage for the K2000.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

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

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, also on a 128-bit bus, but with a lower bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s.

Q: Are there differences in power consumption?

A: Yes, the K2000 has a lower TDP of 51 W, while the 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of these cards?

A: The K2000 is 202 mm (8 inches) long, while the 2000D is shorter at 178 mm (7 inches). Both cards share the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The K2000 uses the GK107 chip with the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This die is relatively compact at 118 mm², containing 1,270 million transistors, which results in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². In contrast, the 2000D uses the GF106 chip with the older Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. The Fermi die is significantly larger at 238 mm², yet houses fewer transistors (1,170 million), leading to a much lower density of 4.9M per mm². The newer manufacturing process gives the K2000 a clear efficiency and density advantage.

The compute resources differ substantially. The K2000 is equipped with 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The 2000D is cut down significantly, featuring only 192 shading units, though it retains the same 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This doubling of shader count directly translates to higher theoretical throughput for the K2000.

Clock speeds and memory also reflect the generational gap. The K2000's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 2000D's memory is clocked at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). While neither card lists a base or boost GPU clock, the memory clock difference, combined with the identical 128-bit bus width, explains the bandwidth disparity. The K2000 offers 64.00 GB/s versus the 2000D's 41.60 GB/s. Additionally, the K2000 doubles the frame buffer to 2 GB, which is critical for modern workloads.

Feature support also diverges. The K2000 lists support for Vulkan 1.2.175, a modern low-overhead graphics API, whereas the 2000D has no Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K2000 also has a richer set of display outputs, including 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the 2000D only offers 2x DVI. The K2000 has a lower TDP of 51 W compared to the 2000D's 62 W, despite offering more performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the geekbench_opencl test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. This results in a 3.6% victory for the K2000. While the margin is not massive, it is consistent with the K2000's architectural advantages in shader count and memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader context, the K2000's average score of 3964 pits it against rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, deltaPct 0.2) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct 0.2). It is also 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977). This places the K2000 in a tight cluster of mobile and older desktop parts. The 2000D's average score of 3930 sees it trailing the same rivals, including the GeForce GT 745M (3953, deltaPct -0.6) and the Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct -0.7). The 2000D's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), which it beats by 0.3%.

The data suggests that the K2000 is the stronger performer in compute tasks. The 3.6% lead in OpenCL is a direct result of its higher shader count and faster memory. However, the absolute scores are low, indicating both cards are entry-level by modern standards. The K2000's performance is roughly on par with a GeForce 830M, while the 2000D is slightly slower than that same mobile part.

Specification Differences

A direct comparison of the specifications reveals where the K2000 pulls ahead. The process node is a major differentiator: 28 nm for the K2000 versus 40 nm for the 2000D. This leads to a smaller die (118 mm² vs 238 mm²) and higher transistor density (10.8M/mm² vs 4.9M/mm²). The K2000 has more transistors overall (1,270 million vs 1,170 million).

Memory is another key area. The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5, double the 2000D's 1024 MB. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the K2000 versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the 2000D. This yields a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s for the K2000, compared to 41.60 GB/s for the 2000D.

The core configuration is starkly different. The K2000 has 384 shading units, while the 2000D has only 192. Both have 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The resulting fill rates and compute throughput are higher on the K2000: pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also differ. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, lower than the 2000D's 62 W. The K2000 is longer at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 178 mm (7 inches), but both are single-slot and have the same height. Display outputs are different: the K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 2000D only has 2x DVI. The K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 2000D does not. Release dates also differ, with the K2000 launching later.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 as the superior card. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 3.6%, has a higher average score (3964 vs 3930), and a higher percentile ranking (24th vs 23rd). It offers double the memory, significantly more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, and lower power consumption. For any general compute or modern graphics workload, the K2000 is the clear choice.

The Quadro 2000D is not without merit, but its advantages are niche. It is a shorter card (178 mm vs 202 mm), which may be relevant for compact chassis. Its output configuration is limited to DVI, which could be an advantage for legacy setups that specifically require DVI outputs without adapters. However, its older Fermi architecture, lower compute performance, and lack of Vulkan support make it a poor choice for anything but the most basic tasks.

For a builder choosing between the two, the K2000 is the only rational pick unless the system requires the 2000D's specific physical footprint or DVI-only output. The K2000's performance lead, despite being modest in raw percentage, is backed by a superior architecture and more memory, making it more future-proof for workstation tasks.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2000:

• Compute Performance: Wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 4071 versus 3930, a 3.6% advantage.
• Memory Capacity: Offers 2 GB of VRAM, double the 2000D's 1024 MB, which is crucial for larger textures and datasets.
• Memory Bandwidth: Provides 64.00 GB/s, a 54% increase over the 2000D's 41.60 GB/s, directly benefiting memory-intensive workloads.
• Shader Throughput: Has 384 shading units, leading to 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 performance, a 53% improvement over the 2000D's 480.0 GFLOPS.
• Efficiency: Achieves higher performance at a lower TDP (51 W vs 62 W).
• Modern API Support: Adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, absent on the 2000D.
• Display Connectivity: Includes 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, offering more modern connection options.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000D:

• Physical Size: Is shorter at 178 mm (7 inches) versus the K2000's 202 mm (8 inches), which may fit in smaller cases.
• Legacy Display Output: Provides 2x DVI outputs only, which can be a direct match for older monitors or specialized equipment that uses DVI natively.
• Rival Comparison: Beats the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) by 0.3% in average score, showing it is competitive within its immediate family.
• Texture Mapping: Matches the K2000 with 32 TMUs, ensuring equal texture fetch rates per clock in older applications.