NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are both end-of-life Kepler-generation professional mobile and desktop GPUs, respectively. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the K2100M wins the majority of head-to-head tests, but the K2000 secures a notable victory in one API. Both cards sit near the 25th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level professional parts by modern standards, yet their individual strengths and architectural differences make them suited for distinct tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a 2-1 win split in favor of the K2100M. The most decisive victory for the mobile part comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the K2100M scores 4587 against the K2000’s 4071. That is a 12.7% lead, a substantial margin that suggests the K2100M’s compute architecture is significantly better optimized for general-purpose GPU workloads. OpenCL is often used for scientific, engineering, and rendering tasks, so this gap implies the K2100M will handle those jobs with noticeably more speed.

The K2100M also wins the Vulkan test, scoring 4343 versus 4191 for the K2000, a 3.6% advantage. While smaller than the OpenCL gap, this still indicates the K2100M has an edge in modern, low-level graphics APIs. Vulkan is increasingly common in professional visualization software, so this win matters for future-proofing.

However, the K2000 strikes back in the Geekbench Metal test. Here, the K2000 scores 3630, beating the K2100M’s 3524 by 2.9%. Metal is Apple’s graphics API, so this result is particularly relevant for users working in macOS environments or with software that leverages Metal for acceleration. The K2000’s win here is narrow but consistent, showing that the older desktop card retains a niche advantage in Apple-centric workflows.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the K2100M leads with 4151 versus 3964 for the K2000, a difference of 4.7%. The K2100M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170, which is essentially tied (a -0.4% delta). The K2000’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957, also a near-tie (0.2% delta). This places both Quadro cards in the same performance tier as low-end consumer mobile GPUs, which is telling for their absolute capabilities.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture using TSMC’s 28 nm process node. The similarities end there. The K2100M uses the GK106S chip, which packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die. The K2000 uses the smaller GK107 chip, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. That is exactly half the transistor count and roughly half the die area, giving the K2100M a transistor density of 11.5M / mm² compared to 10.8M / mm² for the K2000.

The compute resources differ significantly. The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K2100M has 50% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, yet the same number of ROPs. The extra shading units directly explain the K2100M’s OpenCL dominance, as more parallel processors translate to higher compute throughput. The identical ROP count explains why the pixel rate is similar: the K2100M achieves 8.004 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000, a modest 4.9% difference.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The K2100M delivers 32.02 GTexel/s, while the K2000 manages 30.53 GTexel/s. Despite having 50% more TMUs, the K2100M’s texture rate is only 4.9% higher because its base clock is lower (667 MHz versus the K2000’s unspecified base clock, but the memory clock reveals a different approach). Floating-point performance (FP32) is close: 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M versus 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000. The K2100M’s 4.9% FP32 advantage is smaller than the shading unit count would suggest, indicating the K2000 runs at a higher effective core clock.

Memory configurations are both 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the clocks differ. The K2100M runs memory at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding 48.13 GB/s bandwidth. The K2000 runs memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 33% bandwidth advantage for the K2000, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution displays.

Where Each One Wins

The K2100M wins decisively in compute-oriented tasks, as evidenced by its 12.7% OpenCL lead. This makes it the better choice for GPU-accelerated computation, such as finite element analysis, fluid dynamics, or any workload that relies on raw parallel processing. Its 576 shading units provide a clear advantage in this domain. The K2100M also wins in Vulkan, with a 3.6% lead, making it preferable for modern graphics APIs that are becoming standard in CAD and DCC applications.

The K2000 wins in Metal, with a 2.9% lead, making it the stronger option for Apple ecosystem users. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a significant asset for tasks that move large textures or datasets, such as video editing or high-resolution texture mapping. The K2000’s single-slot design and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface also make it easier to integrate into desktop workstations, whereas the K2100M is an MXM module for laptops. The K2000’s display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) are fixed and known, while the K2100M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop manufacturer.

The K2100M’s higher raw compute and Vulkan performance make it the winner for general professional workloads on the move. The K2000’s higher memory bandwidth and Metal performance make it a better fit for specific desktop tasks, especially those tied to Apple software or memory-intensive rendering.

The Verdict

Data from the benchmarks points to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M as the overall faster GPU. It wins two of three head-to-head tests, including the largest margin of any result (12.7% in OpenCL), and has a higher average benchmark score (4151 versus 3964). For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the K2100M is clearly superior. Its 576 shading units and 48 TMUs provide a structural advantage that the K2000 cannot overcome, despite the K2000’s higher memory bandwidth.

The K2000 is not without merit. Its Metal win (3630 versus 3524) makes it the pick for macOS-centric workflows. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 33% higher than the K2100M’s, which can be decisive for texture streaming or multi-monitor setups with high resolutions. The K2000 is also a desktop card with a known single-slot form factor and standard PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, making it simpler to deploy in a workstation. Given that both cards are end-of-life, the choice hinges on the specific API and form factor requirements. The data says the K2100M is faster overall, but the K2000 is the only one of the two that wins in Metal and offers superior memory throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, which is 4.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000’s 3964.

Q: How much faster is the K2100M in OpenCL?

A: The K2100M scores 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.7% higher than the K2000’s 4071.

Q: Does the K2000 win any benchmark test?

A: Yes, the K2000 wins the Geekbench Metal test, scoring 3630 versus the K2100M’s 3524, a 2.9% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The K2000 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is 33% higher than the K2100M’s 48.13 GB/s.

Q: How do their shading unit counts compare?

A: The K2100M has 576 shading units, which is 50% more than the K2000’s 384 shading units.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture and are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

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

| Chip | GK106S | GK107 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 667 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.13 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

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

| Dimensions | Not specified | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Quadro Maxwell |