NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro P400 across every shared test. In the OpenCL workload, the P400 scores 4249 against the K2000's 4071, a 4.4% lead. That is a modest but consistent margin, indicating the Pascal-based card handles general compute tasks with slightly more efficiency.

The gap widens dramatically in the Vulkan test. The P400 posts 5119, while the K2000 manages 4191. That represents a 22.1% advantage for the newer card, a substantial difference that points to architectural improvements in geometry processing and driver-level API support. The K2000, built on Kepler, was never designed with modern low-level APIs in mind, and the data reflects that.

Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the P400 wins both. There are no recorded tests where the K2000 comes out ahead. The average benchmark score for the P400 is 4684, while the K2000 sits at 3964, a difference of roughly 18% in favor of the newer part. The percentile ranking also supports this: the P400 places in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2000 lands in the 24th. Both are low-end entries by modern standards, but the P400 is measurably closer to mid-range performance.

It is importantly the K2000 has one additional benchmark record, a Metal score of 3630, which the P400 does not have in the database. That test is platform-specific and does not affect the direct comparison, but it shows the K2000 still has some relevance in legacy Apple ecosystems.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and fundamentally different design philosophies. The P400 uses the GP107 chip, built on the Pascal architecture, while the K2000 uses the GK107 chip from the Kepler generation. The process node tells the story: the P400 is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the K2000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. That two-generation jump in manufacturing allows the P400 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The K2000, by contrast, houses 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a density of just 10.8 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ as well. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The K2000 has more shading units at 384, and more TMUs at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the P400 achieves a higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s compared to the K2000's 7.632 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a different story: the K2000 reaches 30.53 GTexel/s, while the P400 manages 20.03 GTexel/s. This means the K2000 retains an edge in texture-heavy workloads, a legacy of its wider memory interface.

Floating-point performance is close on paper. The P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the K2000 provides 732.7 GFLOPS. The K2000 is about 14% ahead in raw shader math, but the P400 counters with a 1:64 FP16 ratio, offering 10.02 GFLOPS of half-precision throughput, a feature the K2000 lacks entirely. Memory subsystems also diverge: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K2000 uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, double the P400's 32.06 GB/s from a 64-bit bus.

The interface and output configuration differ as well. The P400 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16 and outputs three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers one DVI plus two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The P400 also supports newer API revisions: DirectX 12_1 versus 11_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, so that is not a differentiator.

Power efficiency is a major point of separation. The P400 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the K2000 draws 51 W and recommends a 250 W PSU. The P400 delivers comparable or better performance in most tests while using nearly half the power, a direct benefit of the 14 nm process and Pascal's power management.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the stronger card for modern workloads. It wins both recorded head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score, and offers significantly better Vulkan performance. The 22.1% lead in Vulkan is the single largest delta between the two, and it indicates that the P400 will handle current applications and games that rely on low-level graphics APIs far more smoothly.

The K2000 does have advantages, but they are not in areas that matter for most users. Its texture rate is higher, its FP32 compute is slightly better, and its memory bandwidth is double that of the P400. For legacy DirectX 11 workloads, texture-heavy rendering, or scenarios that rely on raw shader throughput, the K2000 remains competitive. But the K2000's FP16 support is absent, its Vulkan implementation is older, and its power draw is higher. The P400 also has a more recent production status, released in 2017 versus 2013, and it belongs to a generation with a known successor in Quadro Volta, which is not the case for the older card.

The launch MSRP of the K2000 was 599 USD, a figure that reflects its original professional positioning, but the database does not record a launch price for the P400, so direct cost comparison is not possible from the available data. What the measurements do show is that the P400 outperforms the K2000 in the tests that matter for current software, while using less power and supporting newer APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249 in the OpenCL test, beating the K2000's 4071 by 4.4%.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The P400 scores 5119 in Vulkan, which is 22.1% higher than the K2000's 4191.

Q: Does the K2000 have any advantages over the P400?

A: Yes, the K2000 has a higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s), more shading units (384 versus 256), and double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s). Its FP32 compute is also slightly higher at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The P400 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The P400 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000 supports DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The P400 uses a 64-bit bus for 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the K2000 uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

For modern, API-forward workloads, the P400 is the clear pick. Its Vulkan score is 22.1% higher, which translates to better performance in current games, CAD viewports, and compute applications that use low-level graphics. The P400 also wins in OpenCL by 4.4%, making it the safer choice for general GPU compute across a broad range of software. Its 14 nm process and 30 W TDP mean it can run in low-profile or power-constrained systems where the K2000's 51 W draw would be a liability. The P400's display outputs, three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, also support newer monitors and higher refresh rates than the K2000's DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 combination.

The K2000 still has a niche. Its higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s) and larger memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) give it an edge in texture-heavy rendering, such as legacy 3D modeling or older game engines that rely on fill-rate-bound operations. Its FP32 compute of 732.7 GFLOPS exceeds the P400's 641.0 GFLOPS, so shader-heavy tasks that do not use modern APIs may run slightly faster. The K2000's 128-bit memory bus provides more headroom for large textures and data sets, even if the overall card is slower in synthetic benchmarks. For users stuck on older software that predates Vulkan or DirectX 12, the K2000 remains a functional option, especially if the system already has it installed.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. But the P400's newer release date, higher average benchmark score, and superior API support make it the better choice for anyone running current software. The K2000 is only preferable in narrow, bandwidth-sensitive scenarios where its wider memory bus and higher texture throughput can be fully utilized. The recorded data does not favor the K2000 in any modern benchmark, so its use case is strictly legacy.