NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 930M 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 930M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 55% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 29% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5264 vs 4071
• Around 56% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.344 vs 14.332
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.225 vs 1.093
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.899 vs 15.009
• 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 84.246 vs 38.219
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 1974
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 3% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 928 MHz
• Around 35% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 22.58 GTexel / s
• Around 1% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 722.7 gflops
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1577 vs 1010
• 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 149
• Around 59% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 vs 166.907
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1987
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1987

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 930M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1010 1577
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	149 385
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	22.344 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	166.907 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.225 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.899 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	84.246 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1987 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3706 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1987 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3706 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 1974

Compare specifications (specs)