GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D holds a decisive edge over the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in the single available benchmark, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3,919 versus 3,718, a 5.4% advantage. This result aligns with the underlying architecture differences: the K2000D is built on the newer 28 nm Kepler process with a much denser transistor layout, while the 3000M is an older 40 nm Fermi design with more transistors but lower efficiency per clock. The K2000D also ranks at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, one point higher than the 3000M's 22nd percentile, reinforcing its slight performance superiority in the database's aggregated results.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919, which is 5.4% higher than the Quadro 3000M's 3,718. The K2000D wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K2000D is 0.3% behind the Quadro 2000D (3,930) and 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 2000 (3,898), with a 0.9% lead over the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. The 3000M is exactly tied with the GeForce GT 740M (3,717), 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 635M (3,740), and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649).

Q: What process nodes do the two cards use?

A: The K2000D uses TSMC's 28 nm process with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The 3000M uses TSMC's 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a substantially larger 332 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 3000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 3000M has higher bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s due to its 256-bit memory bus, despite its memory running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The K2000D has 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The K2000D has a 51 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the 3000M has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. Both have no power connectors, but the 3000M is an MXM module designed for laptops.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two Quadro cards is the architectural generation. The K2000D is a Kepler design, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². This is a modern, efficiency-focused design that prioritizes compute throughput per watt.

The 3000M is a Fermi architecture part, belonging to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, fabricated on the older 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors spread across a 332 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 5.9 million per mm², roughly half the density of the K2000D. This larger, older die consumes more power (75 W vs 51 W TDP) while delivering lower raw compute performance in the benchmark.

The compute resources differ significantly. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 3000M has fewer shading units at 240, but more TMUs at 40 and double the ROPs at 32. The K2000D compensates with higher clocked memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 3000M's memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) but over a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s, a 25% bandwidth advantage.

Pixel and texture rates tell a mixed story. The K2000D produces 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the 3000M manages only 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D versus 432.0 GFLOPS for the 3000M. The K2000D also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the 3000M lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the K2000D wins decisively. It scores 3,919 against the 3000M's 3,718, a 201-point gap that translates to a 5.4% margin. This is not a marginal difference, it represents the cumulative effect of the Kepler architecture's higher shading unit count (384 vs 240), superior clocked memory, and more efficient 28 nm process.

The K2000D's advantage in FP32 compute is stark: 732.7 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS, a 69.6% lead in raw floating-point throughput. This directly explains the OpenCL result, as OpenCL workloads are heavily compute-bound. The K2000D's texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s also outpaces the 3000M's 18.00 GTexel/s by 69.6%, and its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s is 69.6% higher than the 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s.

However, the 3000M does hold one hardware advantage: memory bandwidth. Its 256-bit bus delivers 80.00 GB/s, which is 25% higher than the K2000D's 64.00 GB/s. In memory-bandwidth-limited scenarios, the 3000M could narrow the gap, but the benchmark data shows the K2000D's compute advantages dominate in the tested OpenCL workload.

The K2000D's nearest rivals reinforce its positioning. It trails the Quadro 2000D by a mere 0.3% (3,919 vs 3,930) and edges out the Quadro 2000 by 0.5% (3,919 vs 3,898). The 3000M's rival list includes the GeForce GT 740M at an identical 3,717, showing it sits in a similar performance class as a mid-range mobile GeForce part from a later generation.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the stronger performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.4%, has a higher percentile ranking (23rd vs 22nd), and delivers substantially more compute throughput, 732.7 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS in FP32. Any workload that stresses raw compute, such as OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated processing, will favor the K2000D.

The K2000D also offers better architectural modernity. Its 28 nm Kepler design is more transistor-dense (10.8M/mm² vs 5.9M/mm²), consumes less power (51 W vs 75 W), and supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the 3000M cannot use. For a workstation GPU, Vulkan support matters for compatibility with modern applications and APIs.

The 3000M is not without merit. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is superior, and its 256-bit bus could benefit bandwidth-sensitive tasks. It also has more ROPs (32 vs 16) and TMUs (40 vs 32), which might help in certain rasterization or texturing workloads. However, the benchmark evidence shows these advantages do not translate into a win in the OpenCL test.

For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the K2000D is the clear pick for compute-oriented tasks. The 3000M's higher bandwidth and ROP count make it a niche choice for workloads that are explicitly memory-bound, but the K2000D's overall performance lead, lower power draw, and modern feature set make it the superior general-purpose workstation card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro K2000D | Quadro 3000M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

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

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 240 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | None |

| Dimensions | 202 mm x 111 mm | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2011-02-21 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not specified |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins in: Compute-heavy workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 3,919 versus 3,718 is the definitive result, and it stems from the K2000D's 384 shading units, 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, and higher pixel/texture rates. Its 51 W TDP makes it more power-efficient, and its single-slot PCIe design with DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs suits desktop workstations. The Vulkan 1.2.175 support is a forward-looking feature for modern API compatibility. Its 202 mm length and 111 mm height are compact for a desktop GPU.

NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins in: Memory-bandwidth-intensive scenarios. The 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus are 25% higher than the K2000D's, which could benefit workloads that stream large datasets. Its 32 ROPs and 40 TMUs outnumber the K2000D's 16 and 32, respectively, potentially aiding fill-rate-bound tasks. As an MXM module, it is designed for mobile workstations, offering a path to GPU upgrades in portable systems where the K2000D cannot be installed. Its 75 W TDP is higher but still manageable for a mobile form factor without external power connectors.

The 3000M's 2 GB GDDR5 memory matches the K2000D's capacity, so memory size is not a differentiating factor. The 3000M's earlier release date (2011 vs 2013) and Fermi architecture suggest it is the older design, but its bandwidth advantage remains a genuine, if narrow, strength. In the final analysis, the K2000D wins the benchmark contest outright, while the 3000M is only preferable in the specific niche of memory-bound mobile workloads.