NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 830M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 13% higher core clock speed: 1082 MHz vs 954 MHz
• Around 55% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 3% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4213 vs 4071
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 16.955 vs 14.332
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.81 vs 15.009
• Around 76% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 67.443 vs 38.219
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3589 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 1974
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3589 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 66% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 18.4 GTexel / s
• Around 50% higher pipelines: 384 vs 256
• Around 24% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 588.8 gflops
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 57% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 vs 1006
• 2.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 137
• Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 vs 156.544
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 vs 1.013
• Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1729
• Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1729

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 830M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1006 1580
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	137 385
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4213 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.955 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	156.544 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.013 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	17.81 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.443 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1729 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3589 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1729 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3589 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 1974

Compare specifications (specs)