NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life Kepler-generation professional GPUs, but they target different mobile and desktop segments respectively. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the K2100M taking the only win. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K2100M scores 4587 against the K2000D’s 3919, a 17% advantage. This places the K2100M’s average benchmark score at 4151, which is 232 points higher than the K2000D’s 3919 average. The K2100M also holds a slightly higher percentile rank, sitting at the 25th percentile of all GPUs compared to the K2000D’s 23rd percentile. While the gap is not enormous, it is consistent across the compute-oriented OpenCL workload, indicating that the mobile part delivers a measurable performance edge over its desktop sibling in raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M posts a score of 4587, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D achieves 3919. This yields a 17% delta in favor of the K2100M, making it the clear winner in this specific workload. The K2100M’s advantage stems from its higher shading unit count and texture unit configuration; it packs 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, whereas the K2000D offers 384 shading units and 32 TMUs. This 50% increase in shader count translates directly into a substantial compute lead, even though the K2000D compensates with a higher memory clock and bandwidth.

The K2000D does fight back in memory-related metrics, though not enough to overcome the compute deficit. Its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The K2100M’s memory is slower at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding 48.13 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus width. That is a 33% bandwidth advantage for the K2000D, which could help in memory-bound scenarios. However, in the OpenCL benchmark, the K2100M’s raw compute power dominates. The K2100M also edges out the K2000D in pixel and texture rates: 8.004 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s, and 32.02 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s, respectively. These small but consistent wins reinforce the notion that the K2100M is the faster part overall in compute-heavy tasks.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the K2100M’s average score of 4151 places it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170). It is also 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) and 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075). The K2000D, with its average of 3919, sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930) and 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953). It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883). These figures show that both cards are clustered in a tight performance band, but the K2100M consistently sits at the higher end of that cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The K2100M wins in compute performance, as evidenced by the 17% OpenCL lead. This makes it the better choice for tasks that rely on parallel processing, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or any workload that leverages OpenCL. Its higher FP32 throughput of 768.4 GFLOPS versus the K2000D’s 732.7 GFLOPS provides a 4.9% theoretical compute advantage. The K2100M also has a larger transistor count (2,540 million versus 1,270 million) and a bigger die (221 mm² versus 118 mm²), which indicates a more complex and capable processor. For mobile workstations, the K2100M’s MXM-A (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it a flexible solution for laptops, while its 55 W TDP is modest enough for that form factor.

The K2000D, on the other hand, wins in memory bandwidth and raw memory speed. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 33% higher than the K2100M’s 48.13 GB/s, which can be decisive in applications that are heavily memory-bound, such as large texture loads or certain database operations. It also has a higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps versus 3 Gbps), which reduces latency for frequent memory accesses. The K2000D is a desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, a single-slot form factor, and 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a straightforward drop-in for traditional workstations. Its 51 W TDP is slightly lower than the K2100M’s 55 W, and it has a suggested PSU of 250 W, providing a clear power envelope for system builders. The K2000D also has a defined physical footprint at 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, whereas the K2100M has no listed dimensions due to its mobile nature.

For users who prioritize compute density and mobility, the K2100M is the superior option. For those who need a fixed desktop solution with higher memory throughput and a standard PCIe slot, the K2000D offers specific advantages. The K2000D also has a higher average benchmark score among its nearest rivals relative to its own score, but that is a reflection of the competitive set rather than an absolute performance claim. The data suggests that the K2100M is the stronger all-around performer, while the K2000D is a niche pick for bandwidth-sensitive desktop workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D averages 3919. The K2100M leads by 232 points.

Q: What is the performance difference in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The K2100M scores 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the K2000D’s 3919. This gives the K2100M a 17% advantage in that test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The K2000D offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 33% higher than the K2100M’s 48.13 GB/s. The K2000D also runs its memory at 4 Gbps effective, versus 3 Gbps for the K2100M.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K2100M has 576 shading units, while the K2000D has 384. This 50% increase is a key reason for the K2100M’s compute lead.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture generation?

A: Yes, both are based on the Kepler architecture, but they use different chips. The K2100M uses the GK106S chip, while the K2000D uses the GK107 chip.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two?

A: The K2100M is an MXM module (MXM-A 3.0) designed for portable devices, while the K2000D is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and a 202 mm length.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The K2100M uses the GK106S chip, while the K2000D uses the GK107 chip. The K2100M has a base and boost clock of 667 MHz, whereas the K2000D has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ: the K2100M runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the K2000D runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This leads to a bandwidth difference of 48.13 GB/s for the K2100M versus 64.00 GB/s for the K2000D.

The K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 8.004 GPixel/s for the K2100M and 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000D. Texture rates are 32.02 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 768.4 GFLOPS for the K2100M and 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D. The K2100M has a TDP of 55 W, while the K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The K2000D also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, which the K2100M does not.

Form factors diverge significantly: the K2100M is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The K2000D is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The K2000D has dimensions of 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the K2100M has no listed dimensions. Transistor counts differ as well: the K2100M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. Transistor density is 11.5M / mm² for the K2100M and 10.8M / mm² for the K2000D. The K2000D has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the K2100M has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Kepler architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they belong to different generations within that family. The K2100M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, while the K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. This generation split explains the different chip designs: the K2100M uses the larger GK106S die, while the K2000D uses the smaller GK107 die. The GK106S packs 2,540 million transistors, whereas the GK107 has 1,270 million, reflecting the K2100M’s greater complexity and higher shader count.

The K2100M is a mobile-focused part, as indicated by its MXM module form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It is designed to be integrated into laptops and compact workstations, with a 55 W TDP that fits within mobile thermal budgets. The K2000D is a desktop part, evidenced by its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, single-slot cooling, and fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2). Its 51 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it easy to deploy in standard desktop systems.

Both cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. They also have identical memory configurations in terms of size (2 GB) and type (GDDR5), but the K2000D’s higher memory clock gives it a bandwidth edge. The K2100M compensates with more shading units and TMUs, leading to higher pixel and texture rates. The K2100M’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The K2000D’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell. Both are end-of-life products, with the K2100M released on 2013-07-22 and the K2000D released on 2013-02-28.