NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they represent two distinctly different eras of NVIDIA’s mobile and desktop lineup. The K2100M is a mobile Kepler part from 2013, while the 2000D is a desktop Fermi card from 2011. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between the two, with the K2100M holding a decisive lead in the only shared test. However, the 2000D brings its own advantages in form factor, connectivity, and a lower transistor density that speaks to its older, less efficient design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 points. This translates to a 16.7% advantage for the K2100M, a significant margin that reflects the generational leap between Kepler and Fermi architectures. In practical terms, the K2100M delivers nearly one-sixth more compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, which are common in professional rendering and GPGPU tasks.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the K2100M’s average benchmark score of 4151 places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M330, scores 4170, which is just 0.4% higher, indicating the K2100M is essentially on par with that entry-level mobile part. Interestingly, the K2100M also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4193, by 1% in the other direction, and beats the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) by 1.4% and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075) by 1.9%. This suggests that despite its age and mobile orientation, the K2100M holds its own against a surprisingly wide range of integrated and lower-end discrete GPUs.

The Quadro 2000D, with an average benchmark score of 3930, sits at the 23rd percentile globally. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which scores 3919, a mere 0.3% difference, showing the two cards are virtually neck-and-neck. The 2000D also slightly trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953) by 0.6%, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956) by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957) by 0.7%. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the 2000D’s performance profile is tightly clustered with a set of low-power mobile and entry-level desktop parts, none of which pose a serious threat to the K2100M’s lead.

In the only direct comparison, the K2100M wins outright with a 16.7% margin. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that would be noticeable in any compute-heavy application. The 2000D’s single benchmark score of 3930 is its only data point, and it falls short of the K2100M’s OpenCL result by a wide margin. The data consistently points to the K2100M as the more capable compute part, despite its mobile heritage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is significantly faster, scoring 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro 2000D’s 3930, a 16.7% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro K2100M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The K2100M’s average benchmark score is 4151. It is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170), but 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093), and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075).

Q: What is the performance gap between the Quadro 2000D and its nearest competitor?

A: The Quadro 2000D’s average score is 3930. It is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919), but 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957).

Q: Which card has a higher global percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K2100M ranks at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D ranks at the 23rd percentile, indicating the K2100M is slightly better positioned relative to the entire GPU landscape.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D have any benchmark advantage over the K2100M?

A: No. The only head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, which the K2100M wins. The 2000D has no benchmark victories over the K2100M in the provided data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, while the 2000D has an average of 3930, a difference of 221 points in favor of the K2100M.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the superior choice for raw compute performance. Its 16.7% lead in OpenCL and higher average benchmark score (4151 vs 3930) make it the stronger option for any workload that leverages GPGPU acceleration. The K2100M also boasts a higher global percentile ranking (25th vs 23rd), reinforcing its edge in the broader GPU hierarchy. Users who prioritize compute throughput should unequivocally select the K2100M.

However, the Quadro 2000D is not without its merits. It is a desktop card with a single-slot form factor and dual DVI outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in solution for legacy professional systems that require those specific display connections. Its 178 mm length and 111 mm height are compact, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface ensures broad compatibility with older motherboards. The 2000D also has a lower TDP of 62 W, which is actually higher than the K2100M’s 55 W, but its desktop design may offer better thermal dissipation in a tower chassis. For users with a strict need for dual DVI output and a desktop slot, the 2000D is the pragmatic pick.

Yet, for anyone weighing these two purely on performance, the verdict is one-sided. The K2100M wins the only benchmark they share and posts a higher average score. The 2000D’s nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its score, indicating it is firmly in the entry-level tier, while the K2100M’s rivals include the GTX 1050 Ti, which it beats by 1%. The K2100M’s mobile MXM form factor may require an adapter for desktop use, but that is a physical consideration, not a performance one. From a pure data perspective, the K2100M is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in their core specifications. The Quadro K2100M features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs), while the Quadro 2000D has only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K2100M has triple the shader count and 50% more TMUs, which directly contributes to its superior compute performance.

Memory is another differentiator. The K2100M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2000D has half the capacity at 1024 MB, also GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but with lower bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s. The K2100M also runs its memory at a higher effective speed of 3 Gbps versus the 2000D’s 2.6 Gbps.

Pixel and texture rates tell a similar story. The K2100M achieves 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, while the 2000D manages 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is also higher on the K2100M at 768.4 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. The TDPs are close, with the K2100M at 55 W and the 2000D at 62 W, but their physical designs differ: the K2100M is an MXM module, while the 2000D is a single-slot desktop card measuring 178 mm in length. The bus interface also differs, with the K2100M using MXM-A (3.0) and the 2000D using PCIe 2.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are products of two different NVIDIA generations. The Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Quadro 2000D, in contrast, uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die, yielding a much lower transistor density of 4.9M per mm².

The Kepler part is the more modern and efficient design. Its 28 nm process allows for a higher transistor count in a smaller area, which explains its superior performance despite a lower TDP (55 W vs 62 W). The Fermi architecture in the 2000D is older, with fewer transistors and a less dense layout, which is consistent with its lower benchmark scores. The K2100M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 2000D has no Vulkan support listed, and the K2100M’s generation is listed as “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)” versus the 2000D’s “Quadro Fermi (x000).”

In terms of API support, both cards offer DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2100M’s Vulkan support is a notable advantage for modern cross-platform compute. The 2000D’s predecessor is “Quadro FX Tesla” and its successor is “Quadro Kepler,” while the K2100M’s predecessor is “Quadro Fermi-M” and its successor is “Quadro Maxwell-M,” clearly positioning the K2100M as the later, more advanced product. The release dates confirm this: the K2100M launched in July 2013, while the 2000D launched in October 2011. The 2000D had a launch MSRP of 599 USD, a figure stated once here for reference, while the K2100M has no listed MSRP.