NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M 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 840M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 38% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 745 MHz
• Around 51% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 572.2 gflops
• Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 55 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 11% higher memory clock speed: 2002 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1096 vs 1011
• Around 87% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5745 vs 3074
• 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.848 vs 8.142
• Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.237 vs 0.741
• Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.15 vs 16.571
• 5.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 vs 18.406
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 vs 1726
• Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 vs 2207
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 vs 1726
• Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 vs 2207

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

• Around 33% higher texture fill rate: 23.84 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
• Around 70% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 256 vs 151
• Around 61% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 262.321 vs 162.594
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 3191
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 3191

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1096 1011
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	151 256
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5745 3074
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	22.848 8.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	162.594 262.321
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.237 0.741
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	21.15 16.571
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	95.545 18.406
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2085 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2736 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3191 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2085 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2736 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3191 3351

Compare specifications (specs)