NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark comparing these two workstation GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a clear winner. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. That is a 14.1% advantage for the K2000D, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. The K2000D wins the single head-to-head test, while the 2000M does not win any recorded comparison.

To contextualize that score, the K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. The gap between them is narrow in percentile terms, but the raw score difference of 485 points is meaningful. The K2000D’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5% lower). The K2000D is essentially in a dead heat with those cards, but it is 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883). The 2000M, by contrast, trails its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528), by 2.7%, while beating the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) by 1.3% and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 3.1%. The 2000M’s position among its rivals is more precarious, as it sits below a mobile GeForce part.

The head-to-head delta of 14.1% is the largest single comparison available. The K2000D’s score is closer to its own rival group (within 1% of three cards), while the 2000M’s score is spread across a wider range relative to its competitors (from 3.1% above to 2.7% below). This suggests the K2000D is a more consistently competitive part in its niche, while the 2000M occupies a lower tier with more variable competition. The benchmark data does not include gaming, rendering, or professional application tests, so the OpenCL result is the sole quantitative measure of performance here.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is stark, and it explains much of the performance gap. The K2000D is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip, while the 2000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different process nodes: the K2000D uses 28 nm, while the 2000M uses 40 nm. That process difference alone is a major factor. The smaller node allows the K2000D to pack 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 4.9M per mm². The K2000D is more than twice as dense, meaning it fits nearly the same transistor count into less than half the silicon area.

The compute resources favor the K2000D decisively. It has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The 2000M has exactly half the shading units at 192, but it matches the K2000D with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The shading unit count is the critical difference: the K2000D has twice as many cores for parallel floating-point work. This is reflected in the FP32 performance, where the K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the 2000M. The texture rate tells a similar story: 30.53 GTexel/s for the K2000D versus 17.60 GTexel/s for the 2000M. The pixel rate is also higher on the K2000D at 7.632 GPixel/s, compared to 4.400 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture adds another layer of separation. The K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 2000M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, resulting in just 28.80 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the K2000D runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 2000M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The combination of GDDR5 and a higher clock gives the K2000D more than double the memory bandwidth, which is crucial for OpenCL workloads that stream data.

API support is another differentiator. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 2000M has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the K2000D more future-proof for modern compute and graphics APIs. The K2000D is also a newer design, released on 2013-02-28, versus the 2000M’s 2011-01-12. The K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation, while the 2000M is from the Quadro Fermi-M line. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the K2000D follows Quadro Fermi and leads to Quadro Maxwell, while the 2000M follows Quadro FX Mobile and leads to Quadro Kepler-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS. The K2000D is 73% ahead in pure floating-point throughput.

Q: How much faster is the K2000D in the recorded benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the K2000D scores 3919 versus 3434 for the 2000M, a delta of 14.1%. The K2000D wins the only head-to-head test recorded.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K2000D has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5, while the 2000M has 28.80 GB/s using DDR3. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the K2000D’s memory type and clock give it more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The 2000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The K2000D has a transistor density of 10.8M per mm² on a 118 mm² die, while the 2000M has 4.9M per mm² on a 238 mm² die. The K2000D is built on a 28 nm process, versus 40 nm for the 2000M.

Q: What are their relative positions in the database?

A: The K2000D is at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 2000M is at the 21st percentile. The K2000D’s average benchmark score is 3919, and the 2000M’s is 3434.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ. Shared specs, such as 2 GB memory, 128-bit bus width, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 16 shading units? No, shading units differ, so that is included. The shared items are memory size, bus width, TMUs, ROPs, and the lack of power connectors.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK107 | GF106 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.175 | None |

| Dimensions | 202 mm (8 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2011-01-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 3919 | 3434 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 23 | 21 |

Where Each One Wins

The K2000D wins on every measurable compute metric. It is 14.1% ahead in the OpenCL benchmark, 73% ahead in FP32 throughput, 73% ahead in texture fill rate, and 73% ahead in pixel rate. Its memory bandwidth advantage is even larger, at 122% over the 2000M. The K2000D is the clear choice for tasks that rely on raw shader throughput or memory-intensive workloads, such as OpenCL compute, texture-heavy rendering, or any application that can leverage Vulkan. Its 2 GB GDDR5 buffer is better suited for bandwidth-sensitive data sets.

The 2000M does have one practical advantage: power consumption. It draws 55 W, which is higher than the K2000D’s 51 W, so that is not a win. The 2000M’s slot width is MXM Module, which is designed for laptops and portable workstations, while the K2000D is a single-slot desktop card. The 2000M is the only option for a mobile workstation, as the K2000D’s dimensions (202 mm length, 111 mm height) and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface are desktop-only. The 2000M also has no suggested PSU requirement, while the K2000D suggests a 250 W power supply. In a portable chassis, the 2000M is the feasible pick, but purely on performance the K2000D wins every recorded test.

There is no scenario in the data where the 2000M outperforms the K2000D. Its only advantage is form factor. For users with a fixed desktop slot, the K2000D is superior in every measurable way. For users building a mobile workstation, the 2000M is the only one that fits.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 14.1%, and it leads in every architectural specification that matters for compute. Twice the shading units, more than double the memory bandwidth, a newer process node, and Vulkan support all favor the K2000D. The 2000M is not competitive on any performance metric recorded in the database.

Choose the K2000D if you need a desktop workstation card with the best OpenCL score (3919), the highest FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS), or the fastest memory (64.00 GB/s). It also has a listed launch MSRP of 599 USD, but its performance relative to its closest rivals (within 1% of the Quadro 2000D and Quadro 2000) suggests it is a solid mid-tier option. Choose the 2000M only if your system requires an MXM module, which is the mobile form factor. Its score of 3434 is 3.1% above the Intel HD Graphics 530, but it sits below the GeForce 920MX by 2.7%. The 2000M is a legacy part from 2011, and the data shows it is outclassed by a Kepler card from two years later.

For a desktop workstation, the K2000D is the obvious pick. For a laptop, the 2000M is the only option that fits, but it is not a performance winner. The verdict is unambiguous: the K2000D is the better investment if your chassis allows it.