NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 are two professional mobile and desktop workstation GPUs from different generations of NVIDIA’s Quadro lineup. The M3000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the K2000 uses the older Kepler design. This analysis draws exclusively from recorded benchmark data and specification sheets in the database to compare their performance, architecture, and suitability for different tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the Quadro M3000M delivers a decisive victory over the Quadro K2000.

For Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646, while the K2000 scores 4071. This represents a delta of 308.9 percent in favor of the M3000M. In other words, the M3000M achieves more than four times the OpenCL compute performance of the K2000. OpenCL is a widely used framework for general-purpose GPU computing, so this gap indicates that the M3000M is substantially more capable for compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, simulation, or data processing.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The M3000M scores 16668, while the K2000 scores 4191, a delta of 297.7 percent. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the M3000M again dominates. The absolute scores are close to the OpenCL results, suggesting that both GPUs perform consistently across these two API families, but the M3000M’s architectural advantages translate into a massive lead.

The head-to-head table records 2 wins for the M3000M and 0 wins for the K2000. There is no benchmark in the database where the K2000 outperforms the M3000M. The K2000 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 3630, but the M3000M does not have a recorded Metal result, so no direct comparison is possible for that API.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the average benchmark scores from the database reinforce this hierarchy. The M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the K2000 averages 3964. The M3000M sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the K2000 sits at the 24th percentile. These percentile values indicate that both cards are in the lower-middle range of overall GPU performance, but the M3000M is clearly ahead of the K2000.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The M3000M’s average score of 4621 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which averages 4628 with a delta of -0.1 percent. It is also close to the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, both averaging 4657 with a delta of -0.8 percent. The M3000M is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230, which averages 4577 with a delta of 1 percent. These comparisons show that the M3000M performs in line with mid-range consumer laptop GPUs from its era.

The K2000’s nearest rivals are less powerful. Its average score of 3964 is slightly above the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, delta 0.2 percent), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, delta 0.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, delta 0.3 percent). It falls just short of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, delta -0.3 percent). This places the K2000 at the level of entry-level mobile GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Quadro K2000’s 4071. This is a 308.9 percent advantage for the M3000M.

Q: Is the Quadro M3000M faster in Vulkan as well?

A: Yes. The M3000M scores 16668 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the K2000 scores 4191, a delta of 297.7 percent in favor of the M3000M.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the K2000 has an average of 3964. The M3000M’s score is about 16.5 percent higher, based on the recorded figures.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the M3000M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M with an average score of 4628 and a delta of -0.1 percent. For the K2000, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M with an average score of 3957 and a delta of 0.2 percent.

Q: Does the K2000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database lists 2 wins for the M3000M and 0 wins for the K2000 in the head-to-head comparisons. The K2000’s only additional score is Geekbench Metal at 3630, which has no M3000M counterpart.

Q: What percentile do these cards occupy among all GPUs?

A: The M3000M is at the 27th percentile, while the K2000 is at the 24th percentile. Both are below the median, indicating modest overall performance in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which explains their performance gap. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but their internal designs differ substantially.

Transistor counts highlight the scale difference. The M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a die size of 398 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², with a density of 10.8 million per mm². The M3000M packs more than four times the transistor count into a die that is over three times larger.

The render pipeline is also much larger on the M3000M. It has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations units (ROPs). The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the M3000M has roughly 2.7 times the shading units, 2 times the TMUs, and 2 times the ROPs of the K2000.

Clock speeds differ as well. The M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz. The K2000 does not have recorded base or boost clocks in the database, so a direct clock comparison is not possible. Memory clocks are recorded: the M3000M runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective data rate, while the K2000 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The M3000M’s faster memory clock contributes to its higher bandwidth.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The M3000M offers twice the capacity and 2.5 times the bandwidth, which is critical for large textures or datasets.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The M3000M achieves 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s. The K2000 achieves 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s. The M3000M’s pixel rate is nearly four times higher, while its texture rate is about double. Floating-point performance tells a similar story: the M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS in FP32, while the K2000 delivers 732.7 GFLOPS. Neither card has recorded FP16 or ray tracing cores.

Power consumption and physical design also differ. The M3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor, meaning it is designed for laptops or modular systems. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and is a Single-slot card with dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M3000M does not record one. Both use no power connectors.

Bus interfaces vary: the M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This matters for data transfer between the GPU and CPU. Display outputs also differ: the M3000M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the K2000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

API support is close but not identical. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M3000M has a slightly newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Release dates show the generational gap. The M3000M was released on 2015-08-17, while the K2000 was released on 2013-02-28. The M3000M’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The K2000’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the far more powerful GPU. In every head-to-head benchmark recorded, the M3000M wins by a massive margin. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 308.9 percent higher, and its Vulkan score is 297.7 percent higher. The average benchmark score is 4621 versus 3964, putting the M3000M at a higher percentile among all GPUs.

For users who need compute performance, the choice is clear. The M3000M’s 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 4 GB of memory, and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for demanding professional workloads like 3D rendering, video processing, or scientific computation. The K2000’s 732.7 GFLOPS and 64 GB/s bandwidth are far more limited.

However, the K2000 is not without its niche. It has a lower TDP of 51 W versus 75 W, making it more power-efficient. It is a single-slot desktop card with fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the M3000M is an MXM module whose outputs depend on the host device. The K2000 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, which can be stated once as a reference point, but the database does not list a launch price for the M3000M.

The K2000’s nearest rivals include entry-level mobile GPUs like the GeForce 830M, meaning its performance is comparable to low-end consumer hardware from its time. The M3000M, by contrast, sits near the GeForce GTX 970M, a solid mid-range laptop GPU. This places the M3000M in a much higher performance class.

In short, the M3000M is the winner for anyone prioritizing raw performance, memory capacity, or bandwidth. The K2000 might appeal to users with strict power limits or those needing a compact desktop card with built-in display connectors, but its performance is drastically lower.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs, based on the database:

• Chip: GM204 (M3000M) vs GK107 (K2000)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 (M3000M) vs Kepler (K2000)
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) vs Quadro Kepler (Kx000)
• Transistors: 5,200 million (M3000M) vs 1,270 million (K2000)
• Die Size: 398 mm² (M3000M) vs 118 mm² (K2000)
• Transistor Density: 13.1M / mm² (M3000M) vs 10.8M / mm² (K2000)
• Base Clock: 823 MHz (M3000M) vs not recorded (K2000)
• Boost Clock: 924 MHz (M3000M) vs not recorded (K2000)
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective (M3000M) vs 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective (K2000)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (M3000M) vs 2 GB (K2000)
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit (M3000M) vs 128 bit (K2000)
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s (M3000M) vs 64.00 GB/s (K2000)
• Shading Units: 1024 (M3000M) vs 384 (K2000)
• TMUs: 64 (M3000M) vs 32 (K2000)
• ROPs: 32 (M3000M) vs 16 (K2000)
• Pixel Rate: 29.57 GPixel/s (M3000M) vs 7.632 GPixel/s (K2000)
• Texture Rate: 59.14 GTexel/s (M3000M) vs 30.53 GTexel/s (K2000)
• FP32: 1.892 TFLOPS (M3000M) vs 732.7 GFLOPS (K2000)
• TDP: 75 W (M3000M) vs 51 W (K2000)
• Slot Width: MXM Module (M3000M) vs Single-slot (K2000)
• Suggested PSU: not recorded (M3000M) vs 250 W (K2000)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (M3000M) vs PCIe 2.0 x16 (K2000)
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent (M3000M) vs 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 (K2000)
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) (M3000M) vs 12 (11_0) (K2000)
• Vulkan: 1.4 (M3000M) vs 1.2.175 (K2000)
• Dimensions: not recorded (M3000M) vs 202 mm length, 111 mm height (K2000)
• Release Date: 2015-08-17 (M3000M) vs 2013-02-28 (K2000)
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M (M3000M) vs Quadro Fermi (K2000)
• Successor: Quadro Pascal-M (M3000M) vs Quadro Maxwell (K2000)
• Launch MSRP: not recorded (M3000M) vs 599 USD (K2000)

Where Each One Wins

The M3000M wins in every performance metric that has a direct comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are both roughly three times higher than the K2000’s. Its pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s, meaning it can fill frames much faster. Its texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s allows for more detailed texture mapping. Its FP32 compute of 1.892 TFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS makes it the clear choice for GPU compute tasks.

Memory-heavy workloads also favor the M3000M. It has 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, which matters for large scenes or datasets that exceed the K2000’s capacity. Its bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s means it can move data to and from memory much faster, reducing stalls in rendering or computation.

The M3000M’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also provides double the bandwidth of the K2000’s PCIe 2.0 x16, which can improve performance when transferring data between the GPU and system memory.

The K2000 has a few areas where it holds an advantage. Its TDP is 51 W versus 75 W, so it draws less power and may be easier to cool in a desktop chassis. It is a single-slot card with fixed display outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in for systems that need DVI or DisplayPort connections. The M3000M, as an MXM module, requires a compatible host system to provide display outputs.

For users with a desktop workstation requiring a low-power, compact GPU with direct display connectivity, the K2000 might be sufficient for light 2D tasks or basic OpenGL work. But for any serious 3D rendering, simulation, or compute workload, the database clearly shows the M3000M outperforms the K2000 by a wide margin. The K2000’s nearest rivals include the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420, both entry-level parts, confirming its limited scope. The M3000M, by contrast, rivals the GeForce GTX 970M, placing it firmly in the mid-range performance segment.