NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, which wins both of the direct head-to-head comparisons in the database. The Quadro K2000 does not win any of the shared tests. This is not a close contest; the performance gap is substantial in both compute and graphics API workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 against the Quadro K2000's 4,071. That translates to a 70% advantage for the Pascal-based card. The magnitude of this lead is significant enough to classify the K2000 as a legacy part in compute-heavy scenarios, while the P1000 operates in a different performance tier entirely.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the margin is narrower. The P1000 posts 7,739 points versus the K2000's 4,191, a 45.8% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API, which tends to reduce driver overhead and expose raw hardware capability. Even in that more efficient environment, the P1000 maintains a commanding lead, indicating the underlying silicon advantage is not merely a driver optimization artifact.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the K2000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 3,964. The P1000's average is 3,163, which is lower than the K2000's average. This apparent inversion deserves careful interpretation. The K2000's average is drawn from only three Geekbench tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), all of which are compute-oriented. The P1000's average includes nine tests, several of which are Passmark DirectX legacy tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12) that score very low (79, 21, 31, 19 respectively). These legacy API tests drag down the P1000's average despite its superiority in modern compute workloads. The database's percentile ranking reflects this: the K2000 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the P1000 sits at the 20th percentile.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes these positions. The K2000's closest competitors by average score include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3,957, +0.2%), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3,956, +0.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3,953, +0.3%), with the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 slightly ahead at 3,977 (-0.3%). The P1000's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3,210, -1.5%), and NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3,287, -3.8%). In both cases, the rival scores are within a few percentage points, confirming that the average benchmark scores place each card in a crowded mid-to-low tier. However, the head-to-head tests show that when both cards run the same modern workload, the P1000 is overwhelmingly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations. The Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P1000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is a primary driver of the performance differential, allowing the P1000 to pack significantly more transistors into a modestly larger die.

The K2000 contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The P1000 contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, a density of 25.0 million per mm². The P1000 has more than 2.5 times the transistor count of the K2000, despite being only slightly larger physically. This density improvement is a direct consequence of the finer manufacturing process.

Core counts differ substantially. The K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The P1000's shading unit count is 67% higher than the K2000's, and its ROP count is doubled. These differences directly explain the pixel and texture rate advantages: the K2000 delivers 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s, while the P1000 delivers 47.36 GPixel/s and 59.20 GTexel/s. The P1000's pixel rate is more than six times that of the K2000.

Clock behavior also differs. The K2000 has no listed base or boost clock in the database, while the P1000 has a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The memory clocks differ as well: the K2000 runs its GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the P1000 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Both cards use a 128-bit memory bus, but the P1000's higher memory clock yields 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth versus the K2000's 64.00 GB/s.

The FP32 compute throughput reflects the combined effect of core count and clock speed. The K2000 delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, while the P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS. The P1000 also supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, whereas the K2000 has no listed FP16 capability. The API support differs too: the K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Power characteristics are notable. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P1000 delivers dramatically higher performance while consuming less power and requiring a smaller power supply. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the P1000's board is smaller: 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, versus the K2000's 202 mm length and 111 mm height. The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P1000 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database. There are no recorded tests where the Quadro K2000 comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: the P1000 is the superior choice for any workload represented by these benchmarks.

The P1000's OpenCL score of 13,584 versus 4,071 indicates a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. Tasks that rely on OpenCL, such as video encoding, physics simulation, and scientific calculations, will run roughly three times faster on the P1000. The Vulkan advantage of 45.8% suggests that modern game engines and real-time rendering applications using Vulkan will also favor the P1000 substantially.

The K2000's only relative strengths are in legacy API compatibility and its higher average benchmark score across its limited test set. Its DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a lower feature level than the P1000's DirectX 12 (12_1). The K2000's Vulkan 1.2.175 is older than the P1000's Vulkan 1.4. The K2000 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 3,630 in the database, but the P1000 has no recorded Metal score, so no direct comparison is possible in that API.

For users constrained by power delivery, the P1000 is also preferable: it consumes 47 W versus the K2000's 51 W, and it suggests a 200 W PSU rather than 250 W. The P1000's smaller physical footprint (150 mm vs 202 mm length) makes it easier to fit in compact chassis. The P1000 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the K2000's one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which matters for multi-monitor professional setups.

The K2000's higher average benchmark score (3,964 vs 3,163) and higher percentile rank (24th vs 20th) are the only metrics where it leads. These are artifacts of the different test suites applied to each card, not indicators of real-world superiority. In any shared modern workload, the P1000 dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a higher average benchmark score at 3,964, compared to the Quadro P1000's 3,163. However, this is due to the P1000's inclusion of low-scoring legacy DirectX tests in its benchmark suite.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P1000 in OpenCL compute?

A: The P1000 scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 70% higher than the K2000's score of 4,071.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between these two cards?

A: The K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the P1000's memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) provides 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus the K2000's 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Do these cards require external power connectors?

A: No, neither card requires power connectors. Both are single-slot designs, with the K2000 rated at 51 W TDP and the P1000 at 47 W TDP.

Q: Which card has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The P1000 is smaller, measuring 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, compared to the K2000's 202 mm length and 111 mm height.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The K2000 was released on February 28, 2013, and the P1000 on February 6, 2017.

Specification Differences

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

• Chip: GK107 (K2000) versus GP107 (P1000)
• Architecture: Kepler (K2000) versus Pascal (P1000)
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx000) versus Quadro Pascal (Px000)
• Process node: 28 nm (K2000) versus 14 nm (P1000)
• Foundry: TSMC (K2000) versus Samsung (P1000)
• Transistors: 1,270 million (K2000) versus 3,300 million (P1000)
• Die size: 118 mm² (K2000) versus 132 mm² (P1000)
• Transistor density: 10.8M / mm² (K2000) versus 25.0M / mm² (P1000)
• Base clock: Not listed (K2000) versus 1266 MHz (P1000)
• Boost clock: Not listed (K2000) versus 1480 MHz (P1000)
• Memory clock: 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective (K2000) versus 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective (P1000)
• Memory size: 2 GB (K2000) versus 4 GB (P1000)
• Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s (K2000) versus 80.19 GB/s (P1000)
• Shading units: 384 (K2000) versus 640 (P1000)
• TMUs: 32 (K2000) versus 40 (P1000)
• ROPs: 16 (K2000) versus 32 (P1000)
• Pixel rate: 7.632 GPixel/s (K2000) versus 47.36 GPixel/s (P1000)
• Texture rate: 30.53 GTexel/s (K2000) versus 59.20 GTexel/s (P1000)
• FP32: 732.7 GFLOPS (K2000) versus 1.894 TFLOPS (P1000)
• FP16: Not listed (K2000) versus 29.60 GFLOPS, 1:64 ratio (P1000)
• TDP: 51 W (K2000) versus 47 W (P1000)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (K2000) versus 200 W (P1000)
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 (K2000) versus PCIe 3.0 x16 (P1000)
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 (K2000) versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a (P1000)
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (K2000) versus 12 (12_1) (P1000)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 (K2000) versus 1.4 (P1000)
• Dimensions: 202 mm x 111 mm (K2000) versus 150 mm x 69 mm (P1000)
• Release date: February 28, 2013 (K2000) versus February 6, 2017 (P1000)
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi (K2000) versus Quadro Maxwell (P1000)
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell (K2000) versus Quadro Volta (P1000)
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD (K2000); no MSRP listed for the P1000