NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Quadro cards into completely different performance tiers. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a decisive margin. The P1000 scores 13,584 points against the Quadro K2000D's 3,919 points, a difference of 71.1 percent in favor of the Pascal generation card. This is not a close contest; it is a generational leap expressed in raw compute throughput.

The Quadro K2000D does not win any recorded benchmark in the comparison. Its single recorded score is 3,919 points on Geekbench OpenCL, which places it at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The P1000, despite its far higher OpenCL score, sits at the 20th percentile because its average benchmark score of 3,163 across multiple tests is dragged down by several low DirectX and compute results. The K2000D's average benchmark score is 3,919, derived from that single OpenCL run, while the P1000's average is 3,163 across nine tests including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, plus Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The P1000 is the card for OpenCL compute workloads, where it delivers 3.47 times the raw score of the K2000D. The K2000D, however, has a narrower benchmark profile in the database, so its strengths are less documented. The data shows only that it is competitive with its immediate predecessor, the Quadro 2000D, scoring 0.3 percent below that card, and 0.5 percent above the Quadro 2000. The P1000, in contrast, sits 0.6 percent below the Intel Arc Pro B60 in average score, 1.5 percent below the GeForce GT 640, and 3.8 percent below the GeForce 920M, while running 2.9 percent ahead of the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER in average benchmark score.

For DirectX legacy workloads, the P1000 shows a peculiar profile. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 79 is far higher than its DirectX 10 score of 21, DirectX 11 score of 31, and DirectX 12 score of 19. The K2000D has no recorded DirectX scores in the database, so no comparison is possible there. The P1000's G3D score of 4,512 and G2D score of 589 indicate strong general rasterization and 2D performance, while its GPU compute score of 1,891 is moderate. The K2000D simply lacks these data points.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing nodes and architectures. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip built on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture, built by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It holds 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, for a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The density difference is substantial: the P1000 packs roughly 2.6 times as many transistors per area unit.

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth. The K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1000 MHz and 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but memory runs at 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective, producing 80.19 GB/s. The P1000 therefore offers double the capacity and roughly 25 percent more bandwidth.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the P1000. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 67 percent more shaders, 25 percent more texture units, and double the ROP count. The pixel rate tells the story: the K2000D achieves 7.632 GPixel/s, while the P1000 reaches 47.36 GPixel/s, a 6.2 times difference. Texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s for the K2000D versus 59.20 GTexel/s for the P1000, a 1.94 times difference. Floating point performance is 732.7 GFLOPS for the K2000D versus 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000, a 2.59 times difference. The P1000 also lists FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the K2000D has no FP16 figure recorded.

Clock behavior differs as well. The K2000D lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock. The P1000 has a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The K2000D runs on PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the bus transfer rate in each direction per lane.

Power and physical specs also diverge. The K2000D has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the P1000 has a TDP of 47 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The K2000D measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the P1000 is shorter at 150 mm and lower profile at 55 mm. Display outputs differ sharply, the K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is also newer on the P1000: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175, with OpenGL 4.6 on both.

The K2000D and P1000 belong to different Quadro generations. The K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler Kx000 generation, released in February 2013, with the Quadro Fermi as predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as successor. The P1000 belongs to the Quadro Pascal Px000 generation, released in February 2017, with Quadro Maxwell as predecessor and Quadro Volta as successor. Both are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different cards. For anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro P1000 is the only rational choice in this pairing. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13,584 is 71.1 percent higher than the K2000D's 3,919, and its Vulkan score of 7,739 is a further data point the K2000D cannot match because it has no Vulkan score recorded. The P1000 also has double the memory at 4 GB versus 2 GB, higher bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, more than double the pixel rate, and nearly double the texture rate. It manages all of this at a lower TDP of 47 W versus 51 W and a lower suggested PSU of 200 W versus 250 W. The architecture is two generations newer, built on a smaller 14 nm node versus 28 nm, with more than double the transistor density.

The K2000D does have one practical advantage: its 2 GB memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth could be sufficient for legacy 2D and basic 3D tasks, and its 384 shading units are fewer but possibly adequate for older DirectX 11 workloads. It also has DVI outputs, which the P1000 lacks entirely. The K2000D's nearest rivals, the Quadro 2000D at 3,930 average score and Quadro 2000 at 3,898, show it sits in a tight cluster with its immediate predecessors, within 0.5 percent either way. The P1000's average score of 3,163 is actually lower than the K2000D's average of 3,919, but that is a statistical artifact of the P1000's broader test suite, which includes low DirectX scores. The single most relevant compute test, Geekbench OpenCL, is unambiguous.

The verdict from the recorded data is that the P1000 is the superior compute card by a wide margin, while the K2000D is only preferable for users who specifically need DVI outputs or who are constrained to a PCIe 2.0 platform and want a card with a higher average benchmark score in the database. For all other purposes, the P1000 wins.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 points, which is 71.1 percent higher than the Quadro K2000D's 3,919 points.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these cards?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, and the Quadro P1000 has a TDP of 47 W. The K2000D suggests a 250 W PSU, while the P1000 suggests a 200 W PSU.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The P1000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the K2000D's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The Quadro K2000D provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro P1000 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The K2000D is the only one with DVI.

Q: Which card is closer to the K2000D in average benchmark score among rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000D has an average score of 3,930, which is 0.3 percent below the K2000D's 3,919. The Quadro 2000 sits 0.5 percent above, at 3,898.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The K2000D's GK107 has 1,270 million transistors on 28 nm, giving 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The P1000's GP107 has 3,300 million transistors on 14 nm, giving 25.0 million per square millimeter.

Q: What are the pixel rates for these cards?

A: The K2000D has a pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, while the P1000's rate is 47.36 GPixel/s. The difference is 6.2 times in favor of the P1000.

Q: How much texture throughput does each card offer?

A: The K2000D provides 30.53 GTexel/s, while the P1000 provides 59.20 GTexel/s. The P1000 offers 1.94 times the texture rate.

Q: What is the FP32 performance for the P1000?

A: The P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS, while the K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS. The P1000 is 2.59 times higher in FP32.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The P1000 wins with a score of 13,584, and the delta percentage shows the K2000D trailing by 71.1 percent behind the P1000. This single data point dominates the comparison, so the P1000 takes the only win in the head-to-head table. The K2000D wins zero tests, and the P1000 wins one.

Beyond the head-to-head result, the P1000 also has additional benchmark scores that the K2000D lacks entirely. The P1000's Vulkan score is 7,739, its Passmark DirectX 9 score is 79, DirectX 10 is 21, DirectX 11 is 31, DirectX 12 is 19, G2D is 589, G3D is 4,512, and GPU compute is 1,891. The K2000D has no recorded scores for any of those tests, so the data cannot show a direct comparison there. The only available direct comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL run, and that is a landslide for the P1000.

The nearest rivals for each card reinforce the picture. The K2000D's closest competitor in average score is the Quadro 2000D at 3,930, a difference of 0.3 percent, and the Quadro 2000 at 3,898, a difference of 0.5 percent. The GeForce GT 745M at 3,953 is 0.9 percent above, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3,883 is 0.9 percent below. The K2000D sits comfortably within its own generation. The P1000's nearest rivals are the Intel Arc Pro B60 at 3,182, 0.6 percent above, the GeForce GT 640 at 3,210, 1.5 percent above, the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER at 3,075, 2.9 percent below the P1000 at 3,163, and the GeForce 920M at 3,287, 3.8 percent above. The P1000's average score is therefore lower than the K2000D's average, but that average is computed over nine tests with a wide spread, from the low DirectX scores to the high OpenCL and Vulkan numbers.

The physical and architectural differences are large enough that they explain the benchmark gap. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, against the K2000D's 384 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P1000's pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s is 6.2 times the K2000D's 7.632 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 59.20 GTexel/s is 1.94 times the K2000D's 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1.894 TFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS. The memory bandwidth difference is 80.19 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Every major compute metric favors the P1000, and the OpenCL score reflects that across the board.

The one metric where the K2000D is not outclassed is average benchmark score, where it leads 3,919 to 3,163, but that lead is entirely due to the K2000D having only one benchmark recorded versus nine for the P1000. The K2000D's single score of 3,919 is lower than the P1000's OpenCL score of 13,584, so even that statistical advantage does not translate to actual compute superiority. The data is clear: the P1000 is the faster card, the K2000D is slower in every directly comparable metric, and the only reason to choose the K2000D would be its DVI outputs or its lower bus interface requirement of PCIe 2.0 x16 versus the P1000's PCIe 3.0 x16.