GPU Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they represent two distinct architectural eras. The 2000M is a Fermi-generation mobile part from 2011, while the K2000D is a Kepler-generation desktop card from 2013. Benchmark data shows the K2000D is the clear performance leader, though the 2000M holds its own in specific legacy scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434 points. The K2000D wins by a delta of -12.4%, meaning the 2000M trails by 12.4% in this metric.

This single benchmark result shows a substantial gap between the two cards. The K2000D's score of 3919 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. While both are in the lower quartile of all GPUs, the K2000D's position is meaningfully higher.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context for each card's standing. The 2000M is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3431 (a delta of 0.1% in favor of the 2000M). It also edges out the Intel HD Graphics P4600 by 1.3% and the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1%. However, it falls 2.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX. These tight margins show the 2000M sits in a cluster of low-end GPUs where small differences separate competitors.

The K2000D, by contrast, sits in slightly higher company. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, which scores 3930, a delta of -0.3% against the K2000D, meaning the 2000D is marginally faster. The K2000D also edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 by 0.5% and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 0.9%, while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M by 0.9%. These deltas are extremely small, indicating the K2000D is in a tight performance band with several comparable products.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the K2000D wins the only benchmark test recorded, and it does so by a margin large enough to be meaningful. The 12.4% gap between 3434 and 3919 points is not noise; it reflects a real difference in compute throughput. The K2000D's score is roughly 14% higher than the 2000M's, which is consistent with the architectural and specification differences discussed below.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the K2000D a clear victory in the only recorded test, Geekbench OpenCL. This is a compute-oriented workload that stresses the GPU's shading units and memory subsystem. The K2000D wins this test outright, and its nearest-rival pattern shows it is competitive with slightly newer or higher-tier parts.

The 2000M's strengths are not evident in the benchmark data, but its specification profile suggests where it might hold an edge. It is a mobile MXM module, designed for laptops and portable workstations, whereas the K2000D is a single-slot desktop card. The 2000M consumes 55 W of power, while the K2000D consumes 51 W. These are close figures, but the 2000M's mobile form factor means it is built for environments where the K2000D cannot physically operate.

In terms of raw compute, the K2000D is superior across every measurable specification. It has more shading units, higher pixel and texture rates, higher FP32 throughput, and faster memory bandwidth. The 2000M cannot match any of these figures. The only area where the 2000M is not at a disadvantage is memory capacity, both cards have 2 GB, and the 2000M has a slightly older API profile for Vulkan, where it has no support at all.

For users needing a desktop workstation card with DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs, the K2000D is the only choice between the two. For users needing a mobile MXM module, the 2000M is the only option. The benchmark data does not record any test where the 2000M wins, so the use-case split is driven entirely by form factor and physical requirements rather than performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant and explains the performance delta. The 2000M uses the GF106 chip based on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

Transistor counts tell part of the story. The GF106 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The GK107 has 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The K2000D packs more transistors into roughly half the die area, which is a direct benefit of the smaller 28 nm process.

The shading unit count doubles from 192 on the 2000M to 384 on the K2000D. Both cards have 32 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs, so the shading unit increase is the primary compute advantage. This shows up directly in FP32 throughput: the 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, while the K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, a 73% increase.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The 2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding 64.00 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. Pixel rate improves from 4.400 GPixel/s to 7.632 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 17.60 GTexel/s to 30.53 GTexel/s.

API support moves forward with the newer card. The 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Power draw is similar, 55 W for the 2000M and 51 W for the K2000D, despite the K2000D's higher performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The K2000D leads by 12.4%.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both the Quadro 2000M and Quadro K2000D have 2 GB of memory. However, the 2000M uses DDR3 while the K2000D uses GDDR5, and the K2000D's bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the 2000M.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The K2000D draws slightly less power despite delivering higher performance.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K2000D supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000M compare to its closest rival?

A: The 2000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3431 in the same benchmark, a delta of just 0.1% in favor of the 2000M. It also outperforms the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 3.1%.

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

A: The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0), designed for portable devices. The Quadro K2000D is a Single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D as the superior performer. It wins the only benchmark test recorded, scoring 3919 against the 2000M's 3434, a 12.4% advantage. Its architectural advantages are overwhelming: double the shading units, more than double the memory bandwidth, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and a newer 28 nm process. In any application that uses OpenCL compute or relies on raw GPU throughput, the K2000D is the better card.

The 2000M is not without a niche, however. It is the only mobile option between the two, packaged as an MXM module for portable workstations. Its power draw of 55 W is close to the K2000D's 51 W, meaning it does not sacrifice efficiency for its mobile form factor. For a legacy system requiring an MXM-A (3.0) card with DDR3 memory, the 2000M is the only functional choice.

Users should decide based on platform, not performance. For a desktop workstation with PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, the K2000D is the clear winner. It offers higher percentile standing (23rd versus 21st), better nearest-rival comparisons, and substantially better specifications across every compute metric. For a portable workstation requiring an MXM module, the 2000M is the only option that fits, and its performance, while lower, remains competitive with low-end desktop and integrated graphics of its era.

The K2000D also offers better future-proofing through Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the 2000M lacks entirely. For users running modern Linux or Windows applications that leverage Vulkan, this is a decisive factor in favor of the K2000D.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Chip | GF106 | GK107 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 118 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

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

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

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

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

| FP32 | 422.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 250 W |

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

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

| Vulkan | None | 1.2.175 |

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

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Maxwell |