NVIDIA Quadro 2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in the recorded benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This gives the K2100M a 33.6% performance advantage, making it the winner in the only head-to-head comparison available.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU, and how do they compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, placing it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M330, scores 4170, which is 0.4% higher. The Quadro 2000M averages 3434, sitting in the 21st percentile, with its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, scoring 3431, a difference of just 0.1%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute capability?

A: The Quadro K2100M delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is substantially higher than the Quadro 2000M's 422.4 GFLOPS. This represents an 82% advantage for the K2100M in raw single-precision compute throughput.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro K2100M uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK106S), while the Quadro 2000M is built on the older Fermi architecture (chip GF106). This architectural difference explains many of the performance and feature gaps between the two.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two mobile workstations?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a memory bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s, while the Quadro 2000M provides 28.80 GB/s. The K2100M's bandwidth is about 67% higher, due to its GDDR5 memory running at 3 Gbps effective, compared to the 2000M's DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective.

Q: Which GPU offers Vulkan API support?

A: The Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support recorded in the database. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of NVIDIA's mobile workstation lineup. The Quadro K2100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, while the Quadro 2000M is part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. This generational gap is the primary driver of their performance differences.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The K2100M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the 2000M uses a larger 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink allows the K2100M to pack 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². In contrast, the 2000M contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving it a much lower density of 4.9 million per mm². Interestingly, the older chip has a slightly larger physical die despite its smaller transistor count.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The K2100M is equipped with 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The 2000M has only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K2100M has three times the shader count and 50% more texture units, which directly translates to higher pixel and texture fill rates.

The memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the K2100M uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 48.13 GB/s. The 2000M uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), which produces a bandwidth of only 28.80 GB/s. The K2100M's memory bandwidth advantage of roughly 67% is substantial for compute workloads.

Both GPUs share identical TDP ratings of 55 W, use MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and feature portable device dependent display outputs. Both use the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The K2100M was released on 2013-07-22, while the 2000M is older, with a release date of 2011-01-12.

In terms of API support, the K2100M adds Vulkan 1.2.175, which the 2000M lacks entirely. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life. The K2100M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the 2000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, conducted using Geekbench OpenCL. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a variety of workloads. The Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The K2100M wins with a delta of 33.6%. This is a decisive victory, indicating that the K2100M is roughly one-third faster in OpenCL compute tasks.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores reinforce this gap. The K2100M's average score of 4151 is derived from three benchmarks: Geekbench Metal at 3524, Geekbench OpenCL at 4587, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4343. The 2000M's average score of 3434 comes from a single Geekbench OpenCL run. The difference in average scores is 717 points, or approximately 20.9% in favor of the K2100M.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The K2100M's closest competitor in the database is the AMD Radeon R5 M330, which scores 4170, just 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193, which is 1% higher. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB scores 4093, 1.4% lower, and the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 4075, 1.9% lower. This places the K2100M in a tight cluster of GPUs all performing within roughly 2% of each other, despite the K2100M being a mobile workstation part.

The 2000M's nearest rivals show a similar clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 scores 3431, just 0.1% lower. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389, 1.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 3528, which is 2.7% higher, and the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 3332, 3.1% lower. The 2000M sits in a comparable band, but at a lower absolute performance level.

The pixel and texture rates further illustrate the gap. The K2100M achieves 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, while the 2000M achieves 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. The K2100M is 82% faster in pixel throughput and 82% faster in texture throughput. These figures align closely with the FP32 compute difference, suggesting the K2100M's advantage is consistent across different types of rendering and compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M across every measurable performance dimension. In the only direct benchmark comparison, the K2100M leads by 33.6% in OpenCL. Its FP32 compute is 82% higher, its pixel rate is 82% higher, its texture rate is 82% higher, and its memory bandwidth is 67% higher. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap.

Users currently running a Quadro 2000M in a mobile workstation and seeking a drop-in upgrade should look to the K2100M, provided the system supports the newer MXM-A (3.0) interface and the Kepler-generation card. The K2100M offers the same 55 W TDP, so thermal and power delivery requirements are unchanged. The 2 GB memory capacity is also identical, so workloads that fit within the 2000M's memory footprint will fit equally well on the K2100M.

The K2100M's support for Vulkan is a notable advantage for modern applications that leverage this API. The 2000M's lack of Vulkan support limits its compatibility with newer software stacks. For compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL workloads, the K2100M's 33.6% lead in the head-to-head benchmark is the most direct evidence of its superiority.

However, neither GPU is positioned well in the overall market. The K2100M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and the 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded. The K2100M's nearest rivals include integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics 630, which scores within 1.9% of it. The 2000M similarly competes with integrated solutions like the Intel HD Graphics 530, which is only 3.1% slower. This indicates that both discrete mobile GPUs are at the lower end of the performance spectrum.

For users who must choose between these two specific parts, the K2100M is the clear recommendation. It offers a substantial performance uplift in every category measured, with no increase in power consumption. The only scenario where the 2000M might be considered is if software or hardware compatibility issues arise with the newer Kepler architecture, but the database provides no such evidence. The recorded data consistently points to the K2100M as the superior choice.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M |

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

| Chip | GK106S | GF106 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 752 MHz, 3 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.13 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | null |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2011-01-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Percentile (All GPUs) | 25 | 21 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4151 | 3434 |