NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two NVIDIA professional cards along a single measurable axis. The benchmark suite contains two distinct workload types for the Quadro M2000 and two for the Tesla K20Xm, but only one test appears in both cards' result sets: Geekbench OpenCL. That shared test produces a decisive winner, while the exclusive tests reveal where each card holds its own ground.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 posts an OpenCL score of 14,588 and a Vulkan score of 14,475. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 14,532. The Vulkan result is only 0.8% below its OpenCL figure, which suggests the Maxwell 2.0 architecture handles both compute APIs with similar efficiency. The M2000 sits at the 56th percentile among all GPUs in the database, placing it slightly above the midpoint of the performance distribution. Its nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404 (0.9% behind), the Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 (1% behind), and the GeForce GTX TITAN at 14,373 (1.1% behind). The only rival ahead is the Radeon RX 5500 XT at 14,692, which leads by 1.1%. These are tight margins, all within roughly a percentage point, meaning the M2000 sits in a dense cluster of comparable performers.

The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, by contrast, records an OpenCL score of 17,215 and a Metal score of 8,035. Its average benchmark score is 12,625, which is lower than the M2000's average because the K20Xm's Metal result drags the mean down substantially. The OpenCL figure is more than double the Metal figure, a gap of roughly 114%. This is a compute-oriented card with no display outputs, and the data reflects that focus: its OpenCL performance is strong, while its Metal showing is comparatively weak. The K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs, four points below the M2000. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (0.7% ahead), the GeForce GTX 670 at 12,763 (1.2% ahead), the GeForce GTX 590 at 12,830 (1.6% ahead), and the Radeon Pro 455 at 12,831 (1.6% ahead). Every rival in its cluster beats it by small margins.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Quadro M2000 wins on API breadth and consistency, with two strong scores in OpenCL and Vulkan, and a higher overall percentile. The Tesla K20Xm wins on raw OpenCL throughput, but its lack of display outputs and its weak Metal result make it a specialized compute accelerator rather than a general-purpose graphics card. The M2000 is the better all-rounder in this comparison, while the K20Xm is the better pure compute engine.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice based on workload. For any task that relies on OpenCL compute, the Tesla K20Xm is the faster card, delivering 17,215 against the M2000's 14,588, a 15.3% advantage. That is the single largest performance gap in the entire comparison, and it favors the K20Xm decisively.

For tasks that span multiple APIs, including Vulkan or any graphics workload, the Quadro M2000 is the only option of the two that makes sense. The K20Xm has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor. Its only recorded graphics-adjacent benchmark, Metal, scores 8,035, which is far below both of the M2000's results. The M2000's Vulkan score of 14,475 is nearly double the K20Xm's Metal score, and its OpenCL score is only 2,627 points lower than the K20Xm's best.

The percentile ranking also favors the M2000. It sits at the 56th percentile among all GPUs, while the K20Xm sits at the 52nd. The M2000's average benchmark score of 14,532 is 1,907 points higher than the K20Xm's average of 12,625. This is largely because the K20Xm's Metal result pulls its average down, but it still indicates that the M2000 delivers more consistent performance across the recorded test set.

The physical and power profile reinforces the verdict. The M2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K20Xm is a dual-slot card with a 235 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The M2000 is also shorter at 201 mm versus the K20Xm's 267 mm. For a workstation that needs display outputs, lower power draw, and a smaller footprint, the M2000 is the practical choice. For a compute node where OpenCL throughput is the only metric that matters, the K20Xm wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark where both cards have recorded scores is Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215, and the Quadro M2000 scores 14,588. The delta is 15.3% in favor of the K20Xm. This is a substantial margin in compute terms, and it aligns with the hardware specifications: the K20Xm has 2,688 shading units against the M2000's 768, and its texture rate is 164.0 GTexel/s against 55.82 GTexel/s. The K20Xm's FP32 throughput is 3.935 TFLOPS, more than double the M2000's 1.786 TFLOPS.

The K20Xm's memory subsystem is also significantly wider. It has a 384-bit bus and 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the M2000's 128-bit bus and 105.8 GB/s. The K20Xm carries 6 GB of GDDR5, while the M2000 carries 4 GB. These figures explain the OpenCL gap: more shading units, more memory bandwidth, and more raw FP32 throughput all contribute to the K20Xm's 15.3% lead.

The M2000 does have one advantage in clock speed. Its base clock is 796 MHz with a boost of 1163 MHz, while the K20Xm has no listed base or boost clock in the database. The M2000's memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), compared to the K20Xm's 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The M2000's higher clocks help close the gap, but they cannot offset the K20Xm's massive advantage in core count and memory bus width.

The K20Xm also leads in pixel rate, 40.99 GPixel/s versus the M2000's 37.22 GPixel/s, though the margin there is much smaller at roughly 10%. The K20Xm's transistor count is 7,080 million on a 561 mm² die, versus the M2000's 2,940 million on a 228 mm² die. Both use a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the K20Xm's advantage comes from a much larger die, not a denser one. Their transistor densities are nearly identical: 12.9M per mm² for the M2000 and 12.6M per mm² for the K20Xm.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15.3% ahead of the Quadro M2000's score of 14,588.

Q: Does the Tesla K20Xm support display output?

A: No. The K20Xm has no display outputs, while the Quadro M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14,532 across its two recorded tests, while the Tesla K20Xm averages 12,625 across its two tests. The M2000's average is 1,907 points higher.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Tesla K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth on a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro M2000 has 105.8 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The K20Xm also has more memory capacity at 6 GB versus 4 GB.

Q: How do their percentile rankings differ?

A: The Quadro M2000 ranks at the 56th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Tesla K20Xm ranks at the 52nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and target different segments. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The Tesla K20Xm uses the GK110 chip on the Kepler architecture, belonging to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both are end-of-life products.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The K20Xm packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, while the M2000 uses 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die. Their transistor densities are nearly the same, 12.6M per mm² for the K20Xm and 12.9M per mm² for the M2000, meaning the K20Xm's advantage comes almost entirely from its larger physical size.

Core configuration is where the cards diverge most. The K20Xm has 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K20Xm has 3.5 times the shading units and 4.7 times the TMUs. This translates directly to compute throughput: the K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 164.0 GTexel/s, versus the M2000's 1.786 TFLOPS and 55.82 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are closer, 40.99 GPixel/s for the K20Xm and 37.22 GPixel/s for the M2000.

Memory architecture also differs. The K20Xm uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5 and 249.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The M2000 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 and 105.8 GB/s. The K20Xm's memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the M2000 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). The M2000's faster clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the K20Xm still has more than double the bandwidth.

Clock behavior is different as well. The M2000 lists a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The K20Xm has no base or boost clock listed in the database. This suggests the M2000 has a more conventional consumer-style clock curve, while the K20Xm's clocks are either fixed or not reported.

Feature support shows a generational split in API level. The M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K20Xm supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M2000 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, reflecting its later release. The M2000 launched in April 2016, while the K20Xm launched in November 2012. Their release dates are roughly 3.5 years apart, which explains the API differences.

Physical design also differs. The M2000 is a single-slot card, 201 mm long and 111 mm tall, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The K20Xm is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, with a 235 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The M2000 requires only a 250 W PSU. The K20Xm's power connector configuration is not listed in the database. The M2000 has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.2), while the K20Xm has none, reflecting its role as a compute-only accelerator.

Both cards use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The M2000's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler and its successor is the Quadro Pascal. The K20Xm's predecessor is the Tesla Fermi and its successor is the Tesla Maxwell. The K20Xm has a recorded launch MSRP of 7,699 USD; the M2000 has no launch MSRP listed.

The architecture differences explain every benchmark result. The K20Xm's larger die, higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and greater FP32 throughput drive its OpenCL win. The M2000's newer architecture, higher clocks, display outputs, and lower power draw make it the more versatile and efficient card, even though it loses the only head-to-head compute test.