NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are both end-of-life professional mobile graphics solutions built on the Kepler architecture, yet they serve distinctly different hardware platforms. The data available shows a single direct benchmark comparison, but the broader specification sheets reveal significant divergence in their physical design, memory subsystem, and compute resources. The K3000M is a high-performance MXM module designed for large mobile workstations, while the K2000 is a compact, single-slot PCIe card intended for desktop workstations. This analysis breaks down where each part excels based strictly on the provided benchmark data and hardware specifications.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the K3000M is the clear winner in raw compute performance. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the K3000M scores 4241 points against the K2000’s 4071 points, a delta of 4.2%. This gives the K3000M a single win in the direct comparison, while the K2000 has zero wins. The K3000M’s advantage stems from its larger GPU configuration: it features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the K2000’s 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to higher theoretical pixel and texture rates—7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s for the K3000M versus 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s for the K2000—though the differences are modest in those specific rates.

The K3000M also wins decisively in memory bandwidth. Its 256-bit bus width and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory deliver 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, a substantial 40% increase over the K2000’s 64.00 GB/s, which uses a 128-bit bus. For workloads that are memory-bound, this bandwidth advantage is likely more impactful than the raw compute delta. The K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2000’s average score of 3964 sits in the 24th percentile. Although the percentiles are close, the K3000M’s absolute score is higher.

Where the K2000 wins is in platform flexibility and power efficiency. It is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card with a length of 202 mm and height of 111 mm, making it suitable for standard desktop chassis. Its TDP is 51 W, significantly lower than the K3000M’s 75 W, and it requires a suggested 250 W power supply. The K2000 also offers dedicated display outputs—1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2—whereas the K3000M’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they rely on the host laptop’s design. The K2000 also shows broader API support in testing, with scores for Geekbench Metal (3630) and Geekbench Vulkan (4191), while the K3000M only has an OpenCL score recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute score in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4241, compared to the K2000’s 4071. This represents a 4.2% performance advantage for the K3000M.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The K3000M has a 256-bit memory bus and delivers 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000 has a 128-bit bus and delivers 64.00 GB/s. The K3000M’s bandwidth is roughly 40% higher.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the K2000 outperforms the K3000M?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark provided (Geekbench OpenCL), the K3000M wins outright. The K2000 has its own scores for Metal and Vulkan, but the K3000M has no corresponding scores in those tests for comparison.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The K3000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), designed for laptops. The K2000 is a Single-slot card using PCIe 2.0 x16, with dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, intended for desktop systems.

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

A: The K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The K3000M’s chip is substantially larger and more complex.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the K3000M and K2000 support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. However, the K2000 has recorded benchmark scores for Metal and Vulkan, while the K3000M only has an OpenCL score listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the dataset is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the K3000M scores 4241, while the K2000 scores 4071. The K3000M wins by a margin of 4.2%. This is a significant but not overwhelming lead, suggesting that the K3000M’s additional shading units and memory bandwidth do translate into measurable compute performance, but the Kepler architecture is not scaling perfectly with the extra hardware.

Looking at the rivals for each card provides context. The K3000M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3, which scores 4268, just 0.6% higher than the K3000M. The K3000M also slightly trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -1% delta) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, -1.3% delta). It beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2% delta). The K2000’s nearest rivals are clustered much closer: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% delta), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.3% delta) are all statistically tied with the K2000, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, -0.3% delta) is slightly ahead.

The K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The K2000’s average score of 3964 places it in the 24th percentile. Although the K3000M is only one percentile point higher, the absolute difference in score is 277 points, which is more meaningful at this performance tier. The K3000M’s win in the head-to-head is consistent with its higher theoretical FP32 performance of 753.4 GFLOPS versus the K2000’s 732.7 GFLOPS, though the delta in FP32 is only 2.8%, smaller than the 4.2% benchmark delta.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification areas. The K3000M uses the GK104 chip, while the K2000 uses the smaller GK107 chip. The K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K3000M has 50% more shading units and double the ROPs. The K3000M’s pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000, and its texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration differs significantly. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K3000M uses a 256-bit bus, while the K2000 uses a 128-bit bus. This yields 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s in bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: the K3000M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the K2000 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Despite the higher clock on the K2000, the K3000M’s wider bus wins on total bandwidth.

The K3000M has a base clock of 654 MHz and a boost clock of 654 MHz, meaning it does not dynamically overclock. The K2000’s clock speeds are not specified in the data. The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the K2000 has a TDP of 51 W. The K3000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), while the K2000 is a Single-slot card with PCIe 2.0 x16. The K2000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the K3000M has no suggested PSU listed. The K2000 has physical dimensions of 202 mm length and 111 mm height; the K3000M has no dimensions listed. The K2000 has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the K3000M’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent.” The K2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the K3000M has no MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Kepler architecture using a 28 nm process node at TSMC, but they are implemented with different dies. The K3000M uses the GK104 chip, which contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm². The K2000 uses the GK107 chip, which contains 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm². The transistor density is slightly higher on the K3000M at 12.0M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm² for the K2000.

The K3000M’s larger die provides more execution resources, which is why it has 576 shading units versus 384. Both chips lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, as these are not present in the Kepler architecture. The FP32 performance is 753.4 GFLOPS for the K3000M and 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000, meaning the K3000M’s extra hardware yields only a 2.8% increase in raw floating-point throughput. The K3000M is part of the “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)” generation, targeting mobile workstations, while the K2000 is from the “Quadro Kepler (Kx000)” generation, targeting desktop workstations. The K3000M’s predecessor is “Quadro Fermi-M” and its successor is “Quadro Maxwell-M.” The K2000’s predecessor is “Quadro Fermi” and its successor is “Quadro Maxwell.” The K3000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the K2000 was released later on 2013-02-28.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) by 4.2% and has a higher average benchmark score of 4241 versus 3964. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for professional workloads that frequently access large datasets. The K3000M’s higher shading unit count and ROP count also give it theoretical advantages in pixel and texture processing, even if the real-world delta is modest.

However, the K2000 is the more practical choice for a desktop workstation. It is a single-slot PCIe card with standard display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it plug-and-play in a conventional PC. Its 51 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU requirement mean it can be powered by a typical desktop power supply without issue. The K3000M, in contrast, is an MXM module that requires a compatible laptop chassis with a dedicated MXM-B slot, and its display outputs are dependent on the host device. The K2000 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, providing a reference point for its market positioning, while the K3000M has no such listing.

In terms of performance percentile, both cards are low-end by modern standards—the K3000M sits at the 25th percentile and the K2000 at the 24th percentile. Their nearest rivals include integrated-class GPUs like the AMD Radeon Vega 3 and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, confirming that neither card is competitive with modern discrete solutions. For a user with a legacy mobile workstation, the K3000M is the higher-performing upgrade path. For a user building or upgrading a compact desktop system where power draw and physical footprint matter, the K2000 offers adequate performance with lower system demands. The data does not support the K2000 winning any performance comparison, but its form factor and efficiency make it a viable alternative in the right context.