NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life professional mobile/workstation GPUs, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA architecture. The K2000 is a Kepler-based card, while the 3000M is from the older Fermi generation. Benchmark data shows the K2000 holds a clear performance edge, but the 3000M retains specific advantages in memory bandwidth and texture processing that matter for certain workloads. This analysis breaks down the architectural shifts, benchmark results, and practical use cases for each card based strictly on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is faster. In the only shared benchmark test (Geekbench OpenCL), the K2000 scores 4071, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the K2000 a 9.5% lead in that specific test.

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

A: The K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, placing it 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M420, but 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2. The Quadro 3000M averages 3718, which is exactly level with the GeForce GT 740M, 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 635M, and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro 3000M has higher memory bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s, compared to the K2000's 64.00 GB/s. This is due to the 3000M's wider 256-bit memory bus versus the K2000's 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The Quadro 3000M uses 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the K2000 uses 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die. The 3000M is built on a 40 nm process, whereas the K2000 uses a newer 28 nm process.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the K2000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while Vulkan support is listed as null for the Quadro 3000M.

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

A: The K2000 is a single-slot card with a length of 202 mm (8 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), using a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module using an MXM-B (3.0) interface, with dimensions listed as null, indicating it is a mobile module.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architecture shift between these two cards is significant. The Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, while the Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip. This generational leap is reflected in their manufacturing processes: the K2000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the 3000M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC.

These process differences lead to contrasting transistor densities. The K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8M transistors per mm². In contrast, the 3000M has 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 5.9M / mm². This means the K2000 is far more efficient in terms of transistor packing.

The compute architectures differ substantially. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Quadro 3000M has fewer shading units (240) but compensates with 40 TMUs and 32 ROPs. This suggests the 3000M was designed with a different balance, favoring pixel and texture throughput over pure shader compute.

The memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K2000 operates its memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 3000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 3000M's 256-bit bus is double the width of the K2000's 128-bit bus, giving the 3000M a bandwidth advantage of 80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the results clearly favor the newer card. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This represents a 9.5% difference in favor of the K2000, which aligns with its higher FP32 compute rating of 732.7 GFLOPS compared to the 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS.

This compute advantage is substantial. The K2000's shading units are more numerous and likely more efficient per clock due to the Kepler architecture. The 3000M's higher texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s) do not translate into a win in this compute-centric test, as the K2000's texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s are both higher.

When looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the K2000's average score of 3964 places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the 3000M's average of 3718 lands in the 22nd percentile. While both are near the bottom of the performance spectrum, the K2000's lead is consistent across its available metrics.

The K2000 also has additional benchmark data points: Geekbench Metal at 3630 and Geekbench Vulkan at 4191. The 3000M has no corresponding data for these tests, and its Vulkan support is listed as null, further highlighting its age.

Specification Differences

The most stark differences are in the core compute and memory configurations. The K2000 has 384 shading units, while the 3000M has 240. However, the 3000M has more TMUs (40 vs. 32) and more ROPs (32 vs. 16). This indicates the 3000M was optimized for tasks involving heavy texture sampling and pixel fill, whereas the K2000 focuses on raw shader throughput.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The 3000M's 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 25% higher than the K2000's 64.00 GB/s. This is despite the 3000M's slower memory clock of 625 MHz versus the K2000's 1000 MHz. The wider bus on the 3000M is the sole reason for its bandwidth advantage.

Power and physical specifications differ significantly. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and requires a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the 3000M has a higher TDP of 75 W with no suggested PSU listed. The K2000 is a single-slot PCIe card with dimensions of 202 mm x 111 mm, while the 3000M is an MXM Module with no listed dimensions, designed for laptop integration.

The display outputs also vary. The K2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 3000M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", meaning they rely on the host laptop's design. In terms of API support, the K2000 includes Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 3000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2000: The K2000 wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its FP32 performance of 732.7 GFLOPS is nearly 70% higher than the 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS. The Geekbench OpenCL result confirms this, with the K2000 scoring 9.5% higher. This makes the K2000 the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, CAD workloads, and any application that leverages OpenCL or CUDA acceleration. Its support for Vulkan also gives it a modern API advantage that the 3000M lacks.

NVIDIA Quadro 3000M: The 3000M wins in scenarios that favor memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is significantly higher than the K2000's 64.00 GB/s, which can benefit tasks that are memory-bound, such as large texture loads or certain rendering operations. The 3000M also has more ROPs (32 vs. 16), which could theoretically improve fill-rate performance in specific rasterization tasks, despite its lower overall pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s vs. 7.632 GPixel/s). Its higher TDP of 75 W suggests it may have been designed for more sustained workloads in a mobile workstation chassis.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 9.5% margin in Geekbench OpenCL, and its average benchmark score of 3964 is 246 points higher than the 3000M's 3718. The K2000's higher shading unit count, faster clocks, and modern Kepler architecture give it a decisive edge in compute tasks.

The Quadro 3000M should only be considered if your specific workload is heavily dependent on memory bandwidth or texture operations, where its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 40 TMUs provide a theoretical advantage. However, the data shows that even in those areas, the K2000's higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s) actually outperform the 3000M's specifications.

For any user choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the K2000 is the clear recommendation. It offers better compute performance, higher memory clocks, a more efficient 28 nm process, and broader API support including Vulkan. The 3000M's only advantages are its wider memory bus and higher TDP, which do not translate into benchmark wins. The K2000 is the better choice for virtually any workload, from professional CAD to general compute.