NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are two professional workstation graphics cards from different architectural generations, yet they land in nearly the same performance tier. Both are end-of-life products aimed at CAD and professional visualization workloads, and both were introduced with the same launch MSRP of 599 USD. The data shows that despite a generational gap, the two cards are remarkably close in raw compute benchmarks, with the older Fermi-based card holding a razor-thin edge. This analysis breaks down the differences and helps determine which card suits specific use cases based strictly on the benchmark and specification data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. The delta is a mere 0.3% in favor of the older Quadro 2000D. This is a statistical tie for all practical purposes. The Quadro 2000D wins this single head-to-head matchup, giving it one win versus zero for the K2000D.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides additional context. The Quadro 2000D's closest competitor is the Quadro K2000D itself, with a deltaPct of 0.3%. This is followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, which scores 3953 and is -0.6% behind the 2000D. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M also sit within -0.7% of the 2000D. For the Quadro K2000D, its closest rival is the Quadro 2000D, with a deltaPct of -0.3%. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (non-D variant) is 0.5% behind, scoring 3898. The GeForce GT 745M is -0.9% behind, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is 0.9% behind.

What these numbers reveal is that both cards are clustered with a group of entry-level mobile GPUs and older desktop parts. The performance difference between the 2000D and K2000D is so small that it falls within normal run-to-run variance. In practical terms, neither card offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in this specific workload. Both cards sit at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are in the lower quartile of overall graphics performance. The data suggests that users upgrading from one to the other should not expect any noticeable speed difference in OpenCL compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant, even if the benchmark results are not. The Quadro 2000D is based on the GF106 chip, which uses the Fermi architecture. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 238 mm² and contains 1,170 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per mm². The Quadro 2000D belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation, specifically the x000 series.

The Quadro K2000D, in contrast, uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture. It is manufactured on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The die size is dramatically smaller at 118 mm², yet it packs 1,270 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per mm², which is more than double the density of the Fermi chip. The K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation, the Kx000 series.

The architectural differences extend to the compute core configurations. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro K2000D doubles the shading units to 384, while keeping the same 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This doubling of shader count is a hallmark of the Kepler architecture, which moved to a more efficient scalar design compared to Fermi's MIMD-style cores.

Memory architecture also differs. The 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 650 MHz with an effective data rate of 2.6 Gbps. This yields a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The K2000D has double the capacity at 2 GB, also on a 128-bit bus, but runs its GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz with a 4 Gbps effective rate. This produces a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, a substantial 54% increase over the 2000D. The K2000D also adds a mini-DisplayPort 1.2 output alongside its 2x DVI, whereas the 2000D only has 2x DVI outputs.

The process node and density improvements are the primary drivers behind the K2000D's ability to offer double the shaders and double the memory capacity while consuming less power. The K2000D has a TDP of 51 W versus 62 W for the 2000D, and both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K2000D is longer at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 178 mm (7 inches) for the 2000D, though both share the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The K2000D also adds Vulkan API support (version 1.2.175), while the 2000D has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

Despite the near-identical benchmark scores, each card has distinct advantages based on its specifications. The Quadro 2000D wins the only direct benchmark comparison, scoring 0.3% higher in Geekbench OpenCL. If raw compute performance in that specific test is the sole criterion, the 2000D is the nominal winner. However, this advantage is so small that it is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world applications.

The Quadro K2000D wins on nearly every other measurable specification. It offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which is critical for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures in professional applications. Its memory bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s, a 54% advantage that directly benefits memory-bound workloads. The K2000D also has double the shading units (384 vs 192), which translates to higher theoretical throughput rates: 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 480.0 GFLOPS, 30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, and 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s.

The K2000D also has a lower TDP of 51 W versus 62 W, making it more power-efficient. Its 28 nm process node and higher transistor density indicate a more modern design. The addition of a mini-DisplayPort 1.2 output gives it more display connectivity options compared to the 2000D's dual DVI-only setup. The K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the 2000D does not.

For the 2000D, its advantages are limited to the marginal benchmark win, a shorter physical length (178 mm vs 202 mm), and earlier release date. The 2000D is also lighter on paper in terms of transistor count (1,170 vs 1,270 million), but that is not a practical advantage. In terms of production status, both are end-of-life, so availability is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GF106 (2000D) vs GK107 (K2000D)
• Architecture: Fermi (2000D) vs Kepler (K2000D)
• Generation: Quadro Fermi (x000) vs Quadro Kepler (Kx000)
• Process Node: 40 nm (2000D) vs 28 nm (K2000D)
• Transistors: 1,170 million (2000D) vs 1,270 million (K2000D)
• Die Size: 238 mm² (2000D) vs 118 mm² (K2000D)
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² (2000D) vs 10.8M / mm² (K2000D)
• Memory Clock: 650 MHz / 2.6 Gbps effective (2000D) vs 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective (K2000D)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB (2000D) vs 2 GB (K2000D)
• Memory Bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s (2000D) vs 64.00 GB/s (K2000D)
• Shading Units: 192 (2000D) vs 384 (K2000D)
• Pixel Rate: 5.000 GPixel/s (2000D) vs 7.632 GPixel/s (K2000D)
• Texture Rate: 20.00 GTexel/s (2000D) vs 30.53 GTexel/s (K2000D)
• FP32 Performance: 480.0 GFLOPS (2000D) vs 732.7 GFLOPS (K2000D)
• TDP: 62 W (2000D) vs 51 W (K2000D)
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI (2000D) vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 (K2000D)
• Vulkan Support: Not listed (2000D) vs 1.2.175 (K2000D)
• Length: 178 mm (2000D) vs 202 mm (K2000D)
• Release Date: 2011-10-04 (2000D) vs 2013-02-28 (K2000D)
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Tesla (2000D) vs Quadro Fermi (K2000D)
• Successor: Quadro Kepler (2000D) vs Quadro Maxwell (K2000D)

Both cards share the same manufacturer (NVIDIA), foundry (TSMC), bus interface (PCIe 2.0 x16), memory type (GDDR5), memory bus width (128 bit), TMU count (32), ROP count (16), slot width (Single-slot), power connector requirement (None), suggested PSU (250 W), height (111 mm), DirectX support (12 (11_0)), OpenGL support (4.6), production status (End-of-life), launch MSRP (599 USD), and percentile ranking (23rd).

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. The 2000D is 0.3% faster, which is the only direct benchmark win between the two.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000D have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The K2000D has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, compared to 41.60 GB/s for the 2000D. This is a 54% increase.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the Quadro K2000D has a lower TDP of 51 W, making the K2000D more power-efficient.

Q: Can the Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is listed for the Quadro 2000D. The Quadro K2000D supports Vulkan version 1.2.175.

Q: Do both cards support the same display outputs?

A: No. The Quadro 2000D has 2x DVI outputs only. The Quadro K2000D has 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, offering more connectivity options.

Q: How do these cards compare to mobile GPUs in the same performance class?

A: The Quadro 2000D is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (score 3953) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (score 3956). The Quadro K2000D is 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 745M and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (score 3883).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear case for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D as the more capable card, despite losing the single benchmark comparison by a negligible margin. The K2000D doubles the memory capacity, increases bandwidth by over half, doubles the shading units, and delivers substantially higher pixel, texture, and FP32 throughput rates. It accomplishes all of this while consuming 11 W less power. The architectural advancements from Fermi (40 nm) to Kepler (28 nm) are evident in the doubled transistor density and halved die size.

The Quadro 2000D's only quantitative wins are the 0.3% Geekbench score advantage and its shorter physical length. For professional workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, the difference between 3930 and 3919 points is inconsequential. However, for tasks that are memory-bound or require larger framebuffers, the K2000D's 2 GB capacity and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provide a meaningful advantage that the benchmark score does not fully capture.

Users who need Vulkan support, additional display outputs, or lower power consumption should choose the K2000D. Users with severe space constraints in a chassis might prefer the 2000D's shorter 178 mm length, but this is a niche consideration. Given that both cards launched at the same MSRP of 599 USD, the K2000D offers more hardware per dollar in terms of raw specifications. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K2000D is the better overall workstation card, and the Quadro 2000D only makes sense if the specific benchmark result or physical size is the deciding factor.