NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 940M 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 940M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 12% higher core clock speed: 1072 MHz vs 954 MHz
• Around 23% better floating-point performance: 903.2 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 55% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 46% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5958 vs 4071
• Around 81% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.98 vs 14.332
• Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.307 vs 1.093
• Around 45% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.837 vs 15.009
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 vs 38.219
• Around 88% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 1974
• Around 88% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 8% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 28.22 GTexel / s
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 40% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1577 vs 1127
• 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 155
• Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 vs 168.449
• Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 2132
• Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 2132

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1127 1577
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	155 385
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5958 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	25.98 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	168.449 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.307 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	21.837 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	101.399 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2132 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3065 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2132 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3065 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 1974

Compare specifications (specs)