NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and NVIDIA Tesla K10 are both end-of-life professional accelerators built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target very different workloads. The Quadro M2000 is a Maxwell 2.0-based workstation card with display outputs, while the Tesla K10 is a Kepler-based compute module with no video outputs. Benchmark results show the Quadro M2000 holds a narrow lead in the single available head-to-head test, but the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced story about where each card’s strengths lie.

Where Each One Wins

The data from the benchmark suite shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the Quadro M2000 in the only direct comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M2000 scores 14588 against the Tesla K10’s 14029, a difference of 4%. This makes the Quadro M2000 the winner in the sole head-to-head benchmark recorded, giving it 1 win against 0 for the Tesla K10.

However, a closer look at the performance context shows that both cards occupy a similar tier in the overall GPU landscape. The Quadro M2000 has a percentile rank of 56 among all GPUs, while the Tesla K10 sits just one point lower at 55. Their average benchmark scores are also close: 14532 for the Quadro M2000 versus 14029 for the Tesla K10. The Quadro M2000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404, 0.9% slower), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385, 1% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373, 1.1% slower), while the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT sits 1.1% ahead at 14692. The Tesla K10’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (14150, 0.9% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13871, 1.1% slower).

The win for the Quadro M2000 is not about overwhelming compute power; it is about efficiency in a specific benchmark. The Tesla K10, despite having double the shading units (1536 versus 768) and a higher FP32 throughput (2.289 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS), still trails in the OpenCL test. This suggests the Quadro M2000’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds compensate for its narrower hardware configuration. The Quadro M2000 also benefits from a much lower power draw, with a TDP of 75 W compared to the Tesla K10’s 225 W, and it requires no external power connectors, while the Tesla K10 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Quadro M2000 is the better choice for general-purpose compute and OpenCL workloads, given its 4% lead in the benchmark and its superior efficiency metrics. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot design, and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a practical option for a workstation where both compute and display output are needed. The Tesla K10, by contrast, has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any interactive use case.

The Tesla K10 does have some theoretical advantages in raw compute resources. It features 1536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, compared to 768 and 48 on the Quadro M2000, respectively. Its texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s, and its memory bandwidth is higher at 160.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s, thanks to a 256-bit bus versus a 128-bit bus. However, these advantages do not translate into a benchmark win in the available data, and the Tesla K10’s lower pixel rate (23.84 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s) and older Kepler architecture suggest it is less effective at tasks that rely on the rasterization pipeline.

For a user who prioritizes raw compute resources and memory bandwidth above all else, the Tesla K10 might appear attractive on paper, but the benchmark evidence points to the Quadro M2000 as the better performer in the tested workload. The Quadro M2000 also has a more modern feature set, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla K10 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Given the single benchmark result, the Quadro M2000 is the recommended pick for most use cases, especially those requiring display output and lower power consumption.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a close contest. The Quadro M2000 scores 14588, while the Tesla K10 scores 14029, giving the Quadro M2000 a 4% advantage. This is a significant margin in the context of their respective nearest rival lists, where differences of 1-2% separate cards. For example, the Quadro M2000 is only 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 965M and 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11, so its 4% lead over the Tesla K10 is roughly double the gap it holds over its closest competitors.

The Tesla K10’s performance in OpenCL is more comparable to its own rivals. It is 0.9% behind the GeForce GTX 680 (14150) and 1.1% ahead of the Radeon RX 570X (13871). This places the Tesla K10 in a slightly lower performance tier than the Quadro M2000, despite its larger hardware configuration. The Quadro M2000 also has a second benchmark result in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 14475, though no comparable Vulkan score exists for the Tesla K10, so a direct comparison in that API cannot be made.

The 4% delta in OpenCL is notable because it flips the expectation set by the raw specifications. The Tesla K10 has 100% more shading units and 166.7% more texture mapping units, yet it still loses. This points to architectural efficiency differences between Maxwell 2.0 and Kepler. The Quadro M2000’s higher boost clock of 1163 MHz, compared to the Tesla K10’s unspecified clock speeds, likely contributes to its better per-core performance. The Quadro M2000’s pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s is also substantially higher than the Tesla K10’s 23.84 GPixel/s, which may favor certain compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14532, while the NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14029.

Q: Does the Tesla K10 have more shading units than the Quadro M2000?

A: Yes, the Tesla K10 features 1536 shading units, which is double the 768 shading units found on the Quadro M2000.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the Tesla K10 has a TDP of 225 W. The Quadro also requires no power connectors, whereas the Tesla needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector.

Q: Can the Tesla K10 output video to a display?

A: No, the Tesla K10 has no display outputs, while the Quadro M2000 includes 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K10 has a memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s, compared to the Quadro M2000’s 105.8 GB/s, due to its wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit.

Q: In the head-to-head OpenCL test, what was the margin of victory?

A: The Quadro M2000 won by 4%, scoring 14588 against the Tesla K10’s 14029.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro M2000 is based on Maxwell 2.0, using the GM206 chip, while the Tesla K10 is based on the older Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. This architectural gap is significant, as Maxwell 2.0 introduced features that improve compute efficiency and API support. The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Tesla K10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The Tesla K10 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro M2000 has 2,940 million transistors on a smaller 228 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for the Quadro M2000 at 12.9M/mm², compared to 12.0M/mm² for the Tesla K10. The Tesla K10’s larger die and higher transistor count are offset by its older architecture, which is less efficient per transistor in the benchmark results.

The Tesla K10 also has a dual-GPU design implied by its specifications, though the data does not explicitly state this. Its 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs are consistent with a multi-chip module, but the Quadro M2000’s single GM206 chip is more modest in configuration. The lack of display outputs on the Tesla K10 indicates it was designed purely for compute acceleration, while the Quadro M2000’s display outputs make it a hybrid workstation card. The release dates also reflect the generational gap: the Tesla K10 was released in April 2012, while the Quadro M2000 came out in April 2016.

Specification Differences

The memory configurations are similar in capacity but differ in bus width. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the Tesla K10 uses a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro M2000 uses a 128-bit bus for 105.8 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the Tesla K10 running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the Quadro M2000 at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

The compute resources show a clear disparity. The Tesla K10 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FP32 performance favors the Tesla K10 at 2.289 TFLOPS versus 1.786 TFLOPS. However, the Quadro M2000 has higher pixel and texture rates per clock, with 37.22 GPixel/s and 55.82 GTexel/s, compared to the Tesla K10’s 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s.

Physical dimensions and power requirements differ considerably. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card measuring 201 mm in length, while the Tesla K10 is a dual-slot card at 272 mm. The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the Tesla K10 draws 225 W and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The suggested PSU rating is 250 W for the Quadro M2000 versus 550 W for the Tesla K10. The Tesla K10 has a launch MSRP of 5,099 USD, while no launch MSRP is listed for the Quadro M2000. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, but only the Quadro M2000 offers display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2).