NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this database comparison is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4071 against 3434, a lead of 18.5%. The K2000 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 3964 compared to 3434 for the Quadro 2000M, and it sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs while the Quadro 2000M sits in the 21st.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life workstation graphics solutions, the data points clearly to the Quadro K2000. It is the faster card in compute workloads, it offers a more modern feature set, and it carries a higher overall standing in the database's performance distribution. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, is a mobile module with lower raw performance and an older architecture. The only scenario where the Quadro 2000M might be the logical pick is if the system physically requires an MXM-A form factor, as the K2000 is a single-slot PCIe card. Beyond that form-factor constraint, the benchmark results provide no statistical reason to prefer the older mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 4071 versus 3434 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M. That is an 18.5% advantage for the K2000.

Q: How do these two cards compare in overall benchmark standing?

A: The Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964 and ranks in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000M has an average score of 3434 and ranks in the 21st percentile.

Q: What memory types do these cards use?

A: The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the K2000's memory bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the 2000M.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K2000 was released on 2013-02-28, and the Quadro 2000M was released on 2011-01-12.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000M does not list Vulkan support in the database.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 202 mm in length. The Quadro 2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module designed for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations from NVIDIA, and the database shows a clear progression in design philosophy. The Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. The process node alone tells a large part of the story: the K2000 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the 2000M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts are similar, 1,270 million for the K2000 and 1,170 million for the 2000M, but the die sizes diverge sharply. The K2000 packs its transistors into a 118 mm² die, while the 2000M spreads the same order of magnitude across a much larger 238 mm² die. The resulting transistor density is 10.8 million transistors per mm² for the K2000 versus 4.9 million per mm² for the 2000M. This density advantage is a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm process and explains how the K2000 delivers more compute resources in a smaller physical footprint.

Compute resource counts differ substantially. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The doubling of shading units in the K2000 is the primary architectural driver behind its higher floating-point throughput. The K2000 also has a much larger memory bandwidth pool, 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, thanks to its GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) compared to the 2000M's DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The API support also reflects the architectural gap. The K2000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The 2000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan entry. The K2000 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, while the 2000M belongs to the older Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. The predecessor and successor lines reinforce the generational difference: the K2000 follows Quadro Fermi and leads to Quadro Maxwell, while the 2000M follows Quadro FX Mobile and leads to Quadro Kepler-M.

Specification Differences

The two cards share some specifications but differ across nearly every major category. Both have 2 GB of memory and a 128-bit bus width, and both use 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Beyond those common points, the specifications diverge.

The process node is 28 nm for the K2000 and 40 nm for the 2000M. The K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density is 10.8M per mm² for the K2000 versus 4.9M per mm² for the 2000M.

Memory type is GDDR5 on the K2000 and DDR3 on the 2000M. Memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the K2000 and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 2000M. Memory bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Shading units are 384 on the K2000 versus 192 on the 2000M. Pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, while the 2000M has a TDP of 55 W. The K2000 is single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 2000M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K2000 and MXM-A (3.0) for the 2000M. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the K2000, while the 2000M is listed as portable device dependent. The K2000 measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the 2000M has no dimensions listed.

The K2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The 2000M has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are unambiguous. The Quadro K2000 scores 4071, and the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The K2000 wins by 18.5%.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the K2000 also has results in Geekbench Metal and Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 3630 and 4191 respectively. The 2000M has no entries for those tests. This absence of Vulkan results for the 2000M aligns with its lack of Vulkan API support in the specification list. The K2000's average benchmark score across all tests is 3964, while the 2000M's average is exactly its single OpenCL score of 3434.

The nearest rival data places each card in its own performance neighborhood. The K2000 sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.3% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, -0.3% difference). The 2000M sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431, 0.1% difference), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, 1.3% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528, -2.7% difference), and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, 3.1% difference). The gap between these two rival clusters, roughly 500 points of average score, is consistent with the 18.5% head-to-head delta.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every measurable compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS is 73.5% higher than the 2000M's 422.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s is 73.5% higher than 4.400 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s is 73.5% higher than 17.60 GTexel/s. The K2000's memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is more than double the 2000M's 28.80 GB/s. In the OpenCL benchmark, the K2000 leads by 18.5%.

The Quadro 2000M wins in no benchmark category. Its only advantage is physical form factor: it is an MXM-A module, which makes it the only option of the two for portable workstations that require that connector standard. The K2000 is a desktop PCIe card and cannot be installed in such a system. The 2000M also has a marginally lower TDP of 55 W, but the K2000 is not far behind at 51 W, so the power difference is not meaningful in either direction.

The use-case split is therefore simple. The K2000 is the correct choice for any desktop workstation with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot where compute performance, memory bandwidth, and modern API support are priorities. The 2000M is only the correct choice when the target hardware is an MXM-A mobile workstation that cannot accept a PCIe card, and even then the user accepts a substantial performance penalty in exchange for the module form factor.