NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, if modest, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P400. The P400 scores 4249 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. This yields a delta of 8.4% in favor of the P400. That is the sole benchmark where both cards appear in the same test, so the quantitative comparison rests entirely on this single metric.

Looked at in isolation, an 8.4% lead is meaningful but not transformative. It places the P400 roughly one full step ahead of the K2000D in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. However, the broader database context adds nuance. The P400 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4684. The K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile, with an average score of 3919. The percentile gap is small, suggesting that while the P400 is faster, both cards occupy a similar performance tier in the overall landscape.

The P400's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, both with an average score of 4657, putting the P400 just 0.6% ahead of them. It also trails the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX by 0.9%, which scores 4727. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, the P400 leads by 1.2% (4628). Meanwhile, the K2000D's rivals are older or lower-tier parts: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 (0.3% ahead of the K2000D), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (0.9% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883 (0.9% behind). These deltas are all within a single percentage point, meaning the K2000D is extremely closely matched with its immediate peers, but the P400 sits in a slightly faster class.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations, and the database records fundamental differences in how they are built. The P400 uses the GP107 chip built on the Pascal architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The K2000D uses the GK107 chip on the older Kepler architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process shrink is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which explains much of the efficiency gap between the two.

Transistor counts tell a similar story. The P400 packs 3,300 million transistors onto a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a density of only 10.8M per mm². So the P400 fits nearly 2.6 times as many transistors into a slightly larger area, a direct consequence of the denser manufacturing process.

The compute configurations differ in ways that are not straightforward. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The K2000D has more shading units at 384, more TMUs at 32, but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the P400 achieves a higher pixel rate: 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s for the K2000D. This is a massive difference, nearly 2.6 times higher. The texture rate tells a different story: the K2000D's 30.53 GTexel/s beats the P400's 20.03 GTexel/s by about 52%. In terms of raw floating-point performance, the K2000D's FP32 output is 732.7 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of the P400's 641.0 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations are also distinct. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus widths differ. The P400 uses a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000D uses a 128-bit bus, delivering exactly double the bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are nearly identical: 1002 MHz for the P400 and 1000 MHz for the K2000D, both with 4 Gbps effective data rates. The K2000D's wider bus is a clear advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Feature support shows generational progress. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The P400 also supports FP16 compute at 10.02 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the K2000D has no recorded FP16 capability. Display outputs differ as well: the P400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Power and physical specifications reflect the architectural gap. The P400 has a TDP of 30 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the K2000D has a TDP of 51 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P400 is also smaller: 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, versus the K2000D's 202 mm length and 111 mm height. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The P400 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the better buy for most users. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, draws less power, runs cooler, occupies less space, and supports newer APIs. The 8.4% OpenCL lead is modest, but combined with the efficiency and feature advantages, the P400 is the more modern and capable card.

However, the K2000D is not without merit in specific scenarios. Its FP32 output is 14% higher (732.7 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS), and its memory bandwidth is exactly double (64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s). Its texture rate is 52% higher. For workloads that are heavily texture-bound or bandwidth-bound, the K2000D may actually perform better, despite losing the OpenCL test. The database only records one head-to-head test, so these theoretical advantages are not reflected in a benchmark win, but they are real architectural differences.

The percentile rankings support the P400 as the overall stronger card: 27th percentile versus 23rd. Yet the gap is narrow, and both cards are firmly in the lower half of the GPU performance distribution. Neither card is a powerhouse by modern standards.

Specification Differences

The database lists several fields where the two cards differ. The P400 is built on 14 nm (Samsung), while the K2000D uses 28 nm (TSMC). The P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die; the K2000D has 1,270 million on 118 mm². Transistor density is 25.0M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm².

Compute units: the P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 20.03 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 641.0 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS. The P400 has FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS; the K2000D has none recorded.

Memory: both have 2 GB GDDR5, but the P400 uses a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the K2000D uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are 1002 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Power and size: the P400 has a 30 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU; the K2000D has 51 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU. The P400 measures 150 mm by 69 mm; the K2000D measures 202 mm by 111 mm. Both are single-slot with no power connectors.

Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 2x DVI plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. The K2000D has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD; the P400 has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. The P400 wins by 8.4%.

Q: Does the K2000D have any raw compute advantage?

A: Yes. The K2000D's FP32 output is 732.7 GFLOPS, which is 14% higher than the P400's 641.0 GFLOPS. It also has double the memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The P400 has a TDP of 30 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The K2000D has a TDP of 51 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The P400 is 150 mm long and 69 mm high. The K2000D is 202 mm long and 111 mm high. Both are single-slot cards.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The P400 supports 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The K2000D supports 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: The P400 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4684. The K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile, with an average score of 3919.

Where Each One Wins

The P400 wins in overall benchmark performance, as measured by the Geekbench OpenCL score. It also wins on efficiency metrics: lower TDP (30 W versus 51 W), smaller physical footprint, newer PCIe generation (3.0 versus 2.0), newer display outputs (1.4a versus 1.2), and broader API support (DirectX 12_1 versus 11_0, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175). The P400's pixel rate is dramatically higher at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s, which suggests a strong advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The K2000D wins on specific compute characteristics. Its FP32 throughput is higher at 732.7 GFLOPS, its texture rate is 52% higher at 30.53 GTexel/s, and its memory bandwidth is exactly double. For workloads that stress texture fetching or large data transfers, the K2000D's wider 128-bit bus and additional TMUs could provide a tangible benefit that the single benchmark does not capture. Its shading unit count is also higher at 384 versus 256.

The release timeline favors the P400's modernity: it launched in February 2017, while the K2000D launched in February 2013. Both are end-of-life products, but the P400's Pascal architecture is the more recent design.

In practical terms, the P400 is the better all-rounder for general compute and modern software environments. The K2000D is a niche pick for legacy or bandwidth-sensitive tasks where its doubled memory throughput and higher texture rate matter more than the overall OpenCL score. For a builder choosing between the two today, the P400 is the safer and more efficient choice, but the K2000D retains specific strengths that could tip the scales in a specialized workload.