NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are two professional-grade Kepler architecture GPUs from different segments of NVIDIA’s workstation lineup. One is a mobile module, the other a desktop card. The benchmark data shows a clear, if modest, performance gap between them, but the differences in their underlying specifications and physical design point to very different intended use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. This gives the K3000M an 8.2% lead in raw compute performance. In absolute terms, the K3000M finishes ahead by 322 points. While that is not a massive margin, it is consistent across the testing methodology.

Looking at the broader context of the nearest rivals provides perspective on where each card sits. The K3000M’s score of 4241 places it in a tight cluster with several other GPUs. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268, which is 0.6% higher than the K3000M. Similarly, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M is just 1% ahead at 4282. On the other side of the ledger, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193, which puts the K3000M 1.2% ahead of that card. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295, making it 1.3% faster than the K3000M. This shows the K3000M is firmly in the middle of its competitive set, trading blows with a range of both older and newer hardware.

The K2000D’s score of 3919 places it in a slightly lower tier. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, which scores 3930, putting the K2000D 0.3% behind that card. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, which is 0.5% lower than the K2000D, meaning the K2000D has a slight edge over that direct predecessor. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, which is 0.9% higher than the K2000D, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883, placing it 0.9% behind. The K2000D is therefore positioned at the lower end of its own competitive group, with no single rival more than a point away in either direction.

The head-to-head delta of 8.2% between the two cards is the single most important number here. It confirms that the K3000M is the faster of the two in this compute workload, and it does so with a margin that is meaningful but not overwhelming. In a professional environment, an 8.2% difference might translate to noticeable but not dramatic improvements in render times or simulation throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The K3000M wins the only benchmark category present in the data, which is Geekbench OpenCL. That means it is the better choice for any workload that relies heavily on general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL-accelerated tasks, or parallel floating-point operations. Its 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units contribute to its higher raw throughput. The K3000M also has a higher pixel rate at 7.848 GPixel/s and a higher texture rate at 31.39 GTexel/s.

The K2000D does not win any benchmark categories in this comparison. However, its profile suggests it is not without merit. Its lower TDP of 51 W makes it a more power-efficient part in absolute terms, and its desktop form factor means it can be installed in a standard workstation. The K2000D also has a distinct advantage in physical presence: it is a single-slot card with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, designed to fit into standard PCIe slots. The K3000M, by contrast, is an MXM module, which is a form factor meant for laptops and mobile workstations.

For a user building a desktop workstation where power consumption is a priority, the K2000D’s lower TDP is a point in its favor. For a mobile workstation user, the K3000M is the only option that fits the form factor. In terms of raw compute performance in the tested benchmark, the K3000M is the clear victor, and there is no category in which the K2000D comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The K3000M scores 4241, while the K2000D scores 3919, giving the K3000M an 8.2% advantage in that benchmark.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D?

A: The K2000D had a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s, which is higher than the K2000D’s 7.632 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type?

A: Yes, both the K3000M and K2000D use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, though the K3000M has a 256-bit bus and the K2000D has a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the K2000D has a lower TDP of 51 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their core configurations. The K3000M is built around the GK104 chip and packs 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K2000D uses the smaller GK107 chip and has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This difference in execution resources explains the K3000M’s higher benchmark score.

Memory architecture also differs. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K3000M uses a 256-bit memory bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s. The K2000D is limited to a 128-bit bus, giving it a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock speeds also differ: the K3000M runs at 700 MHz with an effective data rate of 2.8 Gbps, while the K2000D runs at 1000 MHz with an effective rate of 4 Gbps. Despite the faster clock on the K2000D, the wider bus on the K3000M yields significantly higher overall bandwidth.

Clock speeds are only listed for the K3000M, which has a base and boost clock of 654 MHz. No clock speed is provided for the K2000D in the data. The K3000M also has a higher TDP at 75 W compared to the K2000D’s 51 W. The K2000D includes a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the K3000M does not have a suggested PSU listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture and manufactured on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. They share the same API support, including DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither features ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The key architectural difference is the chip itself. The K3000M uses the GK104 die, which is substantially larger at 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors. The K2000D uses the GK107 die, which is 118 mm² and contains 1,270 million transistors. This results in a higher transistor density for the K3000M at 12.0M / mm², compared to the K2000D’s 10.8M / mm².

The form factor is another major architectural distinction. The K3000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The K2000D is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, featuring 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. It measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The generations also differ. The K3000M belongs to the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)" generation, with the predecessor being Quadro Fermi-M and the successor being Quadro Maxwell-M. The K2000D belongs to the "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)" generation, with the predecessor being Quadro Fermi and the successor being Quadro Maxwell. The release dates differ as well, with the K3000M launching on 2012-05-31 and the K2000D launching on 2013-02-28.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the faster GPU, with an 8.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the K2000D. Its higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and larger die all contribute to this outcome. Anyone comparing these two strictly on benchmark scores should choose the K3000M.

However, the choice is not purely about performance. The K2000D is a desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the K3000M is a mobile module with an MXM interface. They are not interchangeable in a system. A desktop workstation builder cannot install the K3000M, and a laptop user cannot install the K2000D. The physical form factor determines which product is even applicable.

For users with a compatible mobile workstation, the K3000M offers better compute performance and higher memory bandwidth. For users building or upgrading a desktop system, the K2000D is the only option that fits, and it brings a lower TDP of 51 W as a compensating benefit. The K2000D also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which is the only pricing data available.

The benchmark percentiles reinforce the overall picture. The K3000M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are near the bottom of the overall GPU performance distribution, but the K3000M is positioned slightly higher. Given the data, the K3000M is the superior choice for raw performance, while the K2000D is the appropriate choice for a specific desktop form factor. The selection should be driven by the system’s physical requirements, and within that constraint, the K3000M is the more capable part.