NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are nearly identical twins in the professional graphics realm, separated by a small but meaningful margin in benchmark results. Both cards share the same GK107 chip, the same 28 nm TSMC manufacturing process, and an identical 1,270 million transistor count on a 118 mm² die. The data shows that the K2000 holds a 3.9% lead in the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the K2000D is positioned as a distinct product with a different display output configuration. This analysis digs into what that delta means in practice, how the architectures align, and which card the numbers favor for specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the primary performance difference between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the Quadro K2000D scores 3919. That is a 3.9% advantage for the K2000, making it the clear winner in raw compute performance.

Q: Are the core specifications identical between the two models?

A: Yes. Both cards feature 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, and a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. Their pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The K2000D averages 3919, which puts it in the 23rd percentile. The K2000 is 45 points higher on average, a small but consistent gap.

Q: What does the K2000D offer that the K2000 does not?

A: The display output configuration is the key differentiator. The K2000D provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. This changes which monitors can be connected without adapters.

Q: Are there any differences in power or physical dimensions?

A: No. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors, a 51 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Their dimensions match exactly at 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Q: How does each card fare against its nearest rivals?

A: The K2000 is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420, 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GT 745M, and 0.3% behind the Radeon HD 6850 X2. The K2000D is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 2000, 0.9% ahead of the Radeon R5 Graphics, but 0.3% behind the Quadro 2000D and 0.9% behind the GT 745M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural DNA of both cards is identical, which makes their performance gap all the more intriguing. They share the same Kepler architecture, the same GK107 chip, and the same 28 nm process node from TSMC. The transistor density of 10.8M per mm² is a direct result of packing 1,270 million transistors into that 118 mm² die. Neither card has any RT cores or tensor cores, as these are pre-ray-tracing Kepler parts.

The compute resources are a mirror image: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The memory subsystem is equally matched, with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS is identical, as are the pixel and texture rates. There is no FP16 support listed for either card, which aligns with their Kepler-era design.

The API support is also identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The PCIe interface is the same PCIe 2.0 x16. The only architectural divergence appears in the physical display outputs. The K2000 opts for one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the K2000D swaps that to two DVI and one mini-DisplayPort 1.2. This suggests a design choice aimed at different workstation setups, not a change in internal silicon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a clear story. The K2000 scores 4071, while the K2000D scores 3919. That 152-point difference translates to a 3.9% delta in favor of the K2000. This is not a negligible margin; it is a measurable lead in a compute-oriented workload that exercises the GPU's general-purpose processing capabilities.

When placed in context with their nearest rivals, the gap becomes more significant. The K2000's 4071 OpenCL score is higher than its own average of 3964, suggesting it performs slightly better in this specific test than in its overall benchmark profile. The K2000D's 3919 OpenCL score exactly matches its average, indicating this test is representative of its typical performance. The K2000D's closest rival, the Quadro 2000D, scores 3930, which is 0.3% higher than the K2000D. Meanwhile, the K2000 sits just 0.3% below the Radeon HD 6850 X2, which scores 3977.

The delta of 3.9% between the two cards is larger than the 0.2% to 0.3% margins seen between the K2000 and its closest rivals. This suggests that the K2000D is not just a rebrand but potentially a slightly lower-binned or differently configured version of the same silicon. The win count reflects this: the K2000 has 1 win in head-to-head benchmarks, while the K2000D has 0.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K2000 as the stronger performer. It wins the only direct benchmark by 3.9%, has a higher average score (3964 vs. 3919), and sits one percentile higher in the global GPU ranking (24th vs. 23rd). For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the K2000 is the better choice.

However, the K2000D is not without merit. Its display output layout of 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort may be more convenient for users with legacy DVI monitors, as it avoids the need for adapters on the primary outputs. The K2000's 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort setup favors users with modern DisplayPort-equipped displays.

The performance difference is modest in absolute terms — a 3.9% delta is unlikely to be perceptible in most professional applications. Yet, when selecting between two otherwise identical cards, the K2000's higher scores make it the default recommendation. The K2000D is the correct pick only if its specific DVI-heavy output configuration is a hard requirement for the user's monitor setup.

Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability may dictate the final decision. But from a pure performance standpoint, the K2000 leads, and the K2000D trails by a consistent, if small, margin.

Specification Differences

The two cards share nearly every specification, which makes the differences all the more notable. The display outputs are the only field where they diverge. The K2000 features 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The K2000D features 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. That is the sole hardware difference between them.

All other specifications are identical. Both have 2 GB GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 732.7 GFLOPS FP32, a 51 W TDP, single-slot cooling, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and dimensions of 202 mm by 111 mm. Their release dates match (2013-02-28), and both have a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The production status for both is end-of-life.

The benchmark scores also differ. The K2000 has three benchmark entries: Geekbench Metal at 3630, Geekbench OpenCL at 4071, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4191. The K2000D only has one entry: Geekbench OpenCL at 3919. The K2000's average score of 3964 is higher than the K2000D's 3919, and its percentile ranking of 24 beats the K2000D's 23.

Where Each One Wins

The K2000 wins in every performance category measured. It has a higher OpenCL score (4071 vs. 3919), a higher average benchmark score (3964 vs. 3919), and a higher percentile ranking (24th vs. 23rd). The K2000 also offers additional benchmark data points in Metal (3630) and Vulkan (4191), which are absent for the K2000D. This gives the K2000 a broader profile for users who care about cross-API performance.

The K2000D wins in the display connectivity department. Its dual DVI outputs are a rarity in modern GPUs, and for workstations still using DVI-based monitors, this card eliminates the need for DisplayPort-to-DVI adapters. The single mini-DisplayPort provides a modern connection option, giving users flexibility in mixed setups. The K2000's dual DisplayPort outputs are better suited for users with multiple DisplayPort monitors, but its single DVI port is a limitation for legacy configurations.

In terms of raw compute, the K2000 is the clear victor. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the 3.9% delta could translate to slightly faster renders, simulations, or data processing. The K2000D is not a slower chip in terms of theoretical specs — its FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate are identical — but the benchmark data shows it underperforms in practice.

The use-case split is straightforward: the K2000 is for users who prioritize compute performance and have DisplayPort-centric setups. The K2000D is for users with DVI-heavy monitor configurations who are willing to accept a small performance hit for the convenience of native DVI output. Neither card is suitable for modern gaming, given their age and professional focus, but for legacy workstation tasks, the K2000 edges out its sibling in every measurable way.