NVIDIA Quadro M2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Tesla K40c and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000, the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the Tesla K40c scored 17468, while the Quadro M2000 scored 14588. The delta between them is 19.7%, meaning the Tesla K40c finishes ahead by nearly one-fifth in this compute-oriented workload. This is a substantial margin, and it reflects the fundamental positioning of the two cards: the K40c is a dedicated compute accelerator, while the M2000 is a workstation graphics card with a more modest compute footprint.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla K40c sits at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17468. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (average score 17509, delta of -0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17551, -0.5%), the AMD Radeon 780M (17588, -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17639, -1%). These deltas are all negative from the K40c's perspective, meaning each of those competing GPUs scores slightly higher, but the differences are tiny, ranging from 0.2% to 1%. In other words, the K40c lands in a tightly packed cluster where a few points separate it from much more recent hardware. The practical takeaway is that despite its age, the K40c's raw OpenCL performance is still competitive with those modern parts, all within a single percentage point.

The Quadro M2000, by contrast, holds the 56th percentile, with an average score of 14532 across two recorded tests: 14588 in OpenCL and 14475 in Vulkan. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14404, delta of 0.9%), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385, 1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373, 1.1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692, -1.1%). Here the deltas are all within a narrow band around 1%, so the M2000 is essentially at parity with those four GPUs. The GTX TITAN, a much older high-end card, is only 1.1% behind the M2000, which shows that the M2000's OpenCL result is not exceptional; it is merely adequate for its class.

The head-to-head delta of 19.7% between the K40c and M2000 is far larger than any of the rival deltas on either side. That gap is the single most important number in this comparison. It tells a clear story: in a pure compute benchmark, the K40c is meaningfully faster, not marginally so.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the Tesla K40c one win (the OpenCL test) and the Quadro M2000 zero wins. That is the entirety of the recorded head-to-head results. From this, the use-case split is straightforward: if the workload is compute-bound and relies on OpenCL, the K40c is the better choice by a wide margin. The 19.7% advantage translates directly into faster execution times for tasks like rendering, simulation, or data-parallel processing that leverage OpenCL.

However, the M2000 has strengths that are not captured in the OpenCL score. It has four DisplayPort outputs, while the K40c has no display outputs at all. That alone changes the practical application: the M2000 can drive multiple monitors, the K40c cannot. For a workstation user who needs to see their work, the M2000 is the only option in this pairing. The K40c is a headless compute card, meant to sit in a server or a dedicated compute node where video output is irrelevant.

The M2000 also records a Vulkan score of 14475, a test that the K40c does not have in the database. That means the M2000 has at least some graphics API capability beyond OpenCL, and its Vulkan result suggests it can handle modern graphics workloads. The K40c, with no Vulkan entry and no display outputs, is not designed for such tasks. So the split is: compute goes to the K40c, graphics and display go to the M2000.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different generations. The Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chips are very different in scale. The K40c packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The M2000 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a density of 12.9M per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the K40c's die is more than twice as large and contains well over twice the transistors.

Memory is another major divider. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s. The M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 105.8 GB/s. The K40c's memory bandwidth is nearly three times higher, which is critical for compute workloads that stream large datasets. The M2000's smaller frame buffer and narrower bus are adequate for graphics but limit compute throughput.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The K40c has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K40c's shading unit count is 3.75 times higher. Its pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s for the M2000, and its texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 5.046 TFLOPS for the K40c and 1.786 TFLOPS for the M2000, a 2.8 times advantage. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Clock behavior differs as well. The K40c runs at a base of 745 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz. The M2000 has a base of 796 MHz and a boost of 1163 MHz. The M2000 clocks higher, but its much smaller core count cannot compensate for the K40c's raw resource advantage. Memory clocks are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the K40c and 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) on the M2000. Power consumption tells the rest of the story: the K40c draws 245 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector. The M2000 draws 75 W, needs no power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. The K40c is dual-slot, while the M2000 is single-slot.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17468 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 scores 14588. The K40c is ahead by 19.7%.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: No. The Tesla K40c has no display outputs. The Quadro M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, so it can drive multiple monitors.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The K40c's bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s, compared to 105.8 GB/s for the M2000.

Q: How does the power requirement differ?

A: The K40c has a TDP of 245 W and needs a 550 W suggested PSU plus 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The M2000 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU is better for modern graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, and it has a recorded Vulkan score of 14475. The Tesla K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, with no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: What are the percentile rankings?

A: The K40c is at the 61st percentile among all GPUs, while the M2000 is at the 56th percentile, based on average benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

• Chip and architecture: K40c uses GK180 (Kepler), M2000 uses GM206 (Maxwell 2.0).
• Generation: K40c is Tesla Kepler (Kxx), M2000 is Quadro Maxwell (Mx000).
• Transistors: K40c has 7,080 million, M2000 has 2,940 million.
• Die size: K40c is 561 mm², M2000 is 228 mm².
• Transistor density: K40c is 12.6M / mm², M2000 is 12.9M / mm².
• Base clock: K40c is 745 MHz, M2000 is 796 MHz.
• Boost clock: K40c is 876 MHz, M2000 is 1163 MHz.
• Memory clock: K40c is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), M2000 is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: K40c is 12 GB, M2000 is 4 GB.
• Memory bus width: K40c is 384 bit, M2000 is 128 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: K40c is 288.4 GB/s, M2000 is 105.8 GB/s.
• Shading units: K40c has 2880, M2000 has 768.
• TMUs: K40c has 240, M2000 has 48.
• ROPs: K40c has 48, M2000 has 32.
• Pixel rate: K40c is 52.56 GPixel/s, M2000 is 37.22 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: K40c is 210.2 GTexel/s, M2000 is 55.82 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: K40c is 5.046 TFLOPS, M2000 is 1.786 TFLOPS.
• TDP: K40c is 245 W, M2000 is 75 W.
• Slot width: K40c is dual-slot, M2000 is single-slot.
• Power connectors: K40c requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, M2000 requires none.
• Suggested PSU: K40c is 550 W, M2000 is 250 W.
• Display outputs: K40c has none, M2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: K40c is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, M2000 is 201 mm (7.9 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high.
• DirectX support: K40c is 12 (11_0), M2000 is 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan support: K40c is 1.2.175, M2000 is 1.4.
• Release date: K40c launched 2013-10-07, M2000 launched 2016-04-07.
• Predecessor and successor: K40c follows Tesla Fermi and precedes Tesla Maxwell; M2000 follows Quadro Kepler and precedes Quadro Pascal.
• Launch MSRP: K40c was 7,699 USD; M2000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on compute performance: the NVIDIA Tesla K40c beats the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 by 19.7% in OpenCL, and it holds a higher percentile ranking (61st versus 56th). For any workload that is measured by the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K40c is the stronger card. Its 2880 shading units, 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, and 288.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth are all far above the M2000's figures. Users who need raw compute power, such as for offline rendering, scientific simulation, or data processing, should choose the K40c, provided they can accommodate its 245 W TDP, dual-slot footprint, and lack of display outputs.

The Quadro M2000 wins on every practical workstation consideration that is not compute-bound. It is a single-slot card that draws only 75 W, requires no power connectors, and has four DisplayPort outputs, so it can drive a multi-monitor setup. Its smaller die and lower clocks mean it generates less heat and fits in smaller systems. Its Vulkan score of 14475, while lower than the K40c's OpenCL score, shows it has a functional graphics API path that the K40c lacks. For a user who needs a quiet, low-power, display-capable GPU for CAD, visualization, or general workstation use, the M2000 is the appropriate pick.

The choice comes down to the task. If the database's single head-to-head benchmark is the deciding factor, the K40c is the clear winner. If the system must output video and stay within a modest power budget, the M2000 is the only viable option. Both cards are end-of-life products, but their recorded data still serves as a guide: compute first with the K40c, graphics and efficiency with the M2000.