NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they represent two very different eras of GPU design. The P2000 is built on the 16nm Pascal architecture, while the K4000 is a 28nm Kepler part from an earlier generation. Benchmark data shows a clear generational leap, with the P2000 winning both shared head-to-head tests decisively, though the K4000 holds its own in the overall percentile rankings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two benchmark results in the data: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the P2000 dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20,125 against the K4000’s 6,816. That is a delta of 195.3% — the P2000 nearly triples the K4000’s score. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 23,566 versus 6,964, a delta of 238.4%. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a fundamental shift in compute capability between the two architectures.

However, the K4000 is not without merit in the broader context. Its average benchmark score is 5,982, which places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The P2000’s average is 6,049, at the 35th percentile. This means that despite the P2000’s massive lead in the two shared tests, the overall average scores are remarkably close — a 67-point difference, or roughly 1.1%. The reason is that the K4000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166, which is not a test the P2000 has results for in this dataset, and the P2000’s Passmark scores across DirectX 9 through 12 are modest, ranging from 28 to 124. The P2000’s Passmark G3D score of 6,956 and G2D score of 626 are strong, but the K4000’s absence from those tests means the averages are not directly comparable across the full suite.

Looking at nearest rivals, the P2000 sits within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (avg score 6,001) and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019). Its closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6,078, just 0.5% higher. The K4000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986, -0.1%), AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, -0.1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970, +0.2%). Interestingly, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server appears as a rival at 5,996, which is 0.2% lower than the K4000 — evidence of how benchmark averages can flatten differences between vastly different hardware generations.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The P2000 wins decisively with a score of 20,125 versus the K4000’s 6,816, representing a 195.3% advantage.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The P2000 again wins, scoring 23,566 against the K4000’s 6,964. The delta is 238.4%, making this the P2000’s largest win in the shared tests.

Q: Are these cards close in overall average benchmark score?

A: Yes, surprisingly close. The P2000 averages 6,049, while the K4000 averages 5,982. That is a difference of only 67 points, or about 1.1%, placing both cards at the 34th-35th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Does the K4000 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: The data shows the K4000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166, but the P2000 has no Metal result in the dataset. Among the shared head-to-head tests, the P2000 wins both — the K4000 has zero wins.

Q: What is the K4000’s launch MSRP?

A: The K4000 had a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD. The P2000’s launch MSRP is not listed in the data.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The P2000 is essentially tied with the GeForce MX230 (-0.5%), RTX A400 (-0.5%), and Radeon 760M (+0.5%). The K4000 is tied with the Quadro K4000M (-0.1%) and FirePro W4100 (-0.1%), and is 0.2% behind the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server.

Architecture Differences

The P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP106 chip fabricated on a 16nm TSMC process. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The K4000 uses the older Kepler architecture, with the GK106 chip on a 28nm TSMC process. It contains 2,540 million transistors on a slightly larger 221 mm² die, giving a density of just 11.5 million per square millimeter. This density difference is the core reason the P2000 can deliver more than double the raw compute performance while drawing less power.

The P2000 features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, but only 24 ROPs. The P2000’s pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s and texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s, compared to the K4000’s 12.96 GPixel/s and 51.84 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the P2000 reaches 3.031 TFLOPS versus the K4000’s 1,244.2 GFLOPS. The P2000 also has FP16 capability at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K4000 has no FP16 data.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, but achieves only 134.8 GB/s due to slower memory clocks. The P2000’s memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the K4000’s runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). API support also differs: the P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

• Process node: P2000 is 16 nm; K4000 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: P2000 has 4,400 million; K4000 has 2,540 million.
• Die size: P2000 is 200 mm²; K4000 is 221 mm².
• Transistor density: P2000 is 22.0M per mm²; K4000 is 11.5M per mm².
• Base clock: P2000 is 1076 MHz; K4000 has no listed base clock.
• Boost clock: P2000 is 1480 MHz; K4000 has no listed boost clock.
• Memory clock: P2000 is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective); K4000 is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: P2000 is 5 GB; K4000 is 3 GB.
• Memory bus width: P2000 is 160-bit; K4000 is 192-bit.
• Memory bandwidth: P2000 is 140.2 GB/s; K4000 is 134.8 GB/s.
• Shading units: P2000 has 1024; K4000 has 768.
• ROPs: P2000 has 40; K4000 has 24.
• Pixel rate: P2000 is 59.20 GPixel/s; K4000 is 12.96 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: P2000 is 94.72 GTexel/s; K4000 is 51.84 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: P2000 is 3.031 TFLOPS; K4000 is 1,244.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: P2000 is 47.36 GFLOPS; K4000 has none listed.
• TDP: P2000 is 75 W; K4000 is 80 W.
• Power connectors: P2000 requires none; K4000 requires 1x 6-pin.
• Bus interface: P2000 is PCIe 3.0 x16; K4000 is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a; K4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX version: P2000 supports 12 (12_1); K4000 supports 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan version: P2000 supports 1.4; K4000 supports 1.2.175.
• Length: P2000 is 196 mm (7.7 inches); K4000 is 241 mm (9.5 inches).
• Release date: P2000 launched 2017-02-05; K4000 launched 2013-02-28.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the P2000 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. Its 195.3% lead in OpenCL and 238.4% lead in Vulkan are overwhelming. It achieves this with lower power consumption (75 W vs 80 W), no external power connector, a smaller physical footprint, and a newer PCIe interface. The P2000 also has more memory (5 GB vs 3 GB), higher bandwidth, and nearly 2.5 times the FP32 compute throughput.

However, the K4000 is not obsolete in the context of average benchmark scores. Its 5,982 average is just 1.1% behind the P2000’s 6,049, and both cards sit within the 34th-35th percentile of all GPUs. The K4000’s nearest rival list includes the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996, which is only 0.2% higher — a peculiar data point that suggests the K4000’s benchmark profile is not solely defined by raw compute. The K4000’s 192-bit memory bus and 3 GB of VRAM may still be adequate for certain legacy workloads, and its 1,269 USD launch MSRP indicates it was positioned as a professional card in its day.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the P2000 is the clear pick for any modern workload. The P2000’s Pascal architecture delivers better API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4), higher pixel and texture rates, and more than double the FP32 throughput. The K4000’s only advantage is its wider memory bus (192-bit vs 160-bit), but that does not translate to higher bandwidth in practice — the P2000 still wins at 140.2 GB/s versus 134.8 GB/s. The K4000’s lack of a boost clock and base clock data in the spec sheet suggests a fixed-clock design, which is less flexible than the P2000’s boost behavior up to 1480 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The P2000 wins in every measurable compute scenario from the shared data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers 20,125 points, which is critical for workloads that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing. In Geekbench Vulkan, its 23,566 points indicate strong performance for Vulkan-based rendering and compute tasks. The P2000 also wins on efficiency — 75 W TDP with no additional power connector means it can run in systems where the K4000’s 80 W TDP and 1x 6-pin requirement might be a constraint. Its 196 mm length makes it easier to fit in compact chassis compared to the K4000’s 241 mm length.

The K4000’s wins are qualitative rather than from direct benchmark victories. It has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166, which is a test the P2000 does not have data for — so for macOS or Metal-specific environments, the K4000 has a validated result while the P2000 has none. The K4000’s 192-bit memory bus is technically wider than the P2000’s 160-bit bus, which could matter for memory-intensive but bandwidth-tolerant tasks, though the P2000’s higher effective memory speed negates this in practice. The K4000 also has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, which is a historical data point but not a current purchasing consideration.

For use-case splitting: if you need Vulkan or OpenCL performance, or you want a card that runs on slot power alone and supports modern DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, the P2000 is the only choice. If you are working in a legacy Kepler-era software stack or specifically require Metal compatibility, the K4000 has a tested result in that area. Otherwise, the P2000’s 2-to-1 and 3-to-1 leads in shared tests make it the practical recommendation for any current workload.