NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they represent two distinct architectural eras from NVIDIA. The K3000M is a mobile-focused Kepler part, while the 2000D is a desktop Fermi card. Benchmark data from Geekbench OpenCL shows a clear, though modest, performance gap between the two. The K3000M scores 7.9% higher than the 2000D, a lead that becomes more significant when considering the underlying hardware differences and the context of their respective rival groups.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is faster, scoring 4,241 points compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3,930 points. This represents a 7.9% performance advantage for the K3000M in this specific test.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest competitors?

A: The K3000M sits in a tight pack, with its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 3, scoring 4,268 points (0.6% higher). The Quadro 2000D is nearly on par with its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which scores 3,919 points (0.3% lower). Both cards are positioned in the lower quartile of all GPUs, with the K3000M at the 25th percentile and the 2000D at the 23rd percentile.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The K3000M uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process with the GK104 chip, while the 2000D uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process with the GF106 chip. The K3000M has significantly more transistors (3,540 million vs. 1,170 million) and a larger die size (294 mm² vs. 238 mm²).

Q: What are the major memory specification differences?

A: The K3000M has double the memory capacity at 2 GB compared to the 2000D's 1024 MB. The K3000M also has a wider 256-bit memory bus and a higher memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s, versus the 2000D's 128-bit bus and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher power consumption rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a higher TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The 2000D also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, a detail not provided for the K3000M.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The K3000M is an MXM Module, making it suitable for laptops or other portable devices, with display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The 2000D is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and features 2x DVI outputs.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split between these two GPUs is architectural. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, utilizing the GK104 chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is based on the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. This generational leap is evident in the manufacturing process; the K3000M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the 2000D uses a larger 40 nm process. This process difference is a primary driver of the K3000M's superior transistor density of 12.0M / mm², compared to the 2000D's 4.9M / mm². Consequently, the K3000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the 2000D fits just 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die.

The compute core configurations reflect this architectural gulf. The K3000M features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the 2000D is equipped with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K3000M has three times the shading units and double the ROPs of the 2000D, which directly contributes to its higher theoretical performance. The K3000M's pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s, while the 2000D lags with a 5.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and a 20.00 GTexel/s texture rate. In terms of raw compute, the K3000M delivers 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, significantly outpacing the 2000D's 480.0 GFLOPS.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K3000M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, a feature the 2000D lacks. The K3000M also has a higher memory clock, running at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) compared to the 2000D's 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). These architectural and feature differences clearly position the K3000M as the more advanced and capable part.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the outright winner in the single available head-to-head test. Its 7.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the superior choice for general-purpose compute tasks and GPU-accelerated workloads that leverage OpenCL. The K3000M's higher memory bandwidth (89.60 GB/s vs. 41.60 GB/s) and greater memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1024 MB) also make it better suited for larger datasets and texture-heavy applications, a critical advantage in professional 3D modeling and rendering scenarios.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, however, holds its own in a specific niche. Its lower TDP of 62 W, compared to the K3000M's 75 W, makes it a more power-efficient option for a desktop workstation. Its single-slot form factor and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface are standard for desktop integration, whereas the K3000M's MXM Module form factor is designed for portables. The 2000D also has a defined physical footprint (178 mm length, 111 mm height) and dedicated 2x DVI display outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in card for a fixed workstation setup. It is also worth remembering the 2000D is nearly identical in performance to its direct successor, the Quadro K2000D, with a delta of only 0.3%, but its architecture is older.

In essence, the K3000M wins on raw performance, memory, and modern features. The 2000D wins on being a compact, low-power desktop solution with a traditional form factor, but it sacrifices performance to do so.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two cards, based solely on the provided data:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK104 | GF106 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Base Clock | 654 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 654 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 (Float) | 753.4 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | Not specified |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 178 mm (length), 111 mm (height) |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 599 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The provided benchmark data includes a single head-to-head comparison, which is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D.

The K3000M achieved a score of 4,241 points, while the 2000D scored 3,930 points. This gives the K3000M a delta of 7.9% over its competitor. This is a significant margin across workstation GPUs, where even small percentage differences can translate into tangible time savings in rendering or simulation workflows.

Looking at the wider competitive landscape, the K3000M's score of 4,241 places it between the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268 points) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4,193 points). It is a tight race, with the K3000M trailing the Vega 3 by a mere 0.6% and leading the GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%. This indicates that the K3000M performs admirably for its generation.

The Quadro 2000D's score of 3,930 places it in a similarly competitive cluster. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, scores 3,919 points, a 0.3% difference in favor of the 2000D. It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3,953 points) by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3,956 points) by 0.7%. This shows that while the 2000D is a capable card, it is positioned at the lower end of the performance spectrum, just as its 23rd percentile ranking suggests.

The 7.9% performance gap between the K3000M and 2000D is the single most important data point in this comparison. It is a clear victory for the newer Kepler architecture, which delivers superior processing power, memory bandwidth, and feature support, solidifying its status as the more capable professional graphics solution.