NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional workstation GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins the only shared test in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, by a decisive margin. Its score of 16646 dwarfs the Quadro K2000D's 3919, a 324.8% advantage. This single result is enough to classify the M3000M as the clear compute winner, and the percentile data supports that positioning: the M3000M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile.

The K2000D has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only entry is that same Geekbench OpenCL test, so it cannot claim superiority in any measured workload. However, the use-case picture is not purely about raw compute. The M3000M is a mobile MXM module with a 75 W TDP, designed to be embedded in portable workstations. The K2000D is a single-slot desktop card with a 51 W TDP and a 250 W suggested power supply, built for fixed workstations. If the workload requires a compact desktop card with dual DVI outputs and mini-DisplayPort connectivity, the K2000D has a physical form factor advantage. But for raw GPGPU performance, the M3000M is categorically faster.

Looking at the M3000M's broader benchmark suite, it also records scores in Passmark tests: G3D at 5543, G2D at 402, GPU Compute at 2139, DirectX 9 at 98, DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 10 at 26, and DirectX 12 at 23. These numbers indicate a capable mobile workstation GPU for CAD, visualization, and compute tasks. The K2000D simply has no corresponding data points, so any comparison beyond OpenCL is impossible from the recorded measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different generations. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip on the original Kepler architecture, belonging to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts differ enormously. The M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8M per mm². This is a 4.1x difference in raw transistor count, which explains the M3000M's substantial performance lead.

The compute resources are similarly lopsided. The M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M3000M therefore has 2.7x the shading units, 2x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS, a 2.6x gap.

Memory architecture also differs. The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks differ too: the M3000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K2000D runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The M3000M has double the capacity, double the bus width, and roughly 2.5x the bandwidth.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M3000M versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K2000D.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the M3000M in OpenCL compute?

A: The M3000M scores 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 324.8% higher than the K2000D's score of 3919. This is the only benchmark shared by both cards in the database.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M3000M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The K2000D has 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The M3000M was released in August 2015, succeeding the Quadro Kepler-M and preceding the Quadro Pascal-M. The K2000D was released in February 2013, succeeding the Quadro Fermi and preceding the Quadro Maxwell.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The M3000M has a 75 W TDP, while the K2000D has a 51 W TDP. The K2000D also lists a 250 W suggested power supply, while the M3000M is an MXM module with no separate power connector requirement.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The M3000M has a density of 13.1 million transistors per mm², while the K2000D has 10.8 million per mm². The M3000M is denser despite both using the same 28 nm TSMC process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GM204 | GK107 |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.892 TFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | August 2015 | February 2013 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark result for these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The M3000M scores 16646, the K2000D scores 3919, and the winner is the M3000M with a delta of 324.8%. This is not a marginal win; it is a blowout. The M3000M delivers over four times the OpenCL compute performance of the K2000D, which aligns with its 4.1x transistor advantage and 2.6x FP32 rating.

The M3000M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4621, which places it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 0.1% lower), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, 0.8% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0.8% lower), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 1% higher). This clustering suggests the M3000M sits in a tight performance band around the 4600 average score mark, with no single dominant rival in its immediate vicinity.

The K2000D's average benchmark score is 3919, placing it at the 23rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9% lower), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9% higher). The K2000D is essentially tied with its direct predecessor, the Quadro 2000, which makes sense given the incremental generational update.

Within the M3000M's own benchmark suite, the Passmark results show a hierarchy of performance across API generations. The DirectX 9 score of 98 is the highest, followed by DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 10 at 26, and DirectX 12 at 23. This pattern reflects the card's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, which was designed for DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 but still retains strong legacy API performance. The G3D score of 5543 and GPU Compute score of 2139 indicate solid workstation-class performance, while the G2D score of 402 covers 2D desktop workloads.

The only comparison possible between the two cards is the OpenCL result, and there the M3000M is unequivocally superior. The K2000D cannot claim a single win in any recorded benchmark. For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, the M3000M is the clear choice. The K2000D's advantages are limited to its physical form factor, lower power draw, and specific display outputs, none of which appear in benchmark scores. The data shows a generational leap in compute capability, not an incremental step.