NVIDIA GeForce 945M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 945M and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D 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).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 945M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• Around 8% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 954 MHz
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 512 vs 384
• Around 30% better floating-point performance: 953.9 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 33% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2109 vs 1586
• 2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8099 vs 3973
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 28.633 vs 14.283
• Around 95% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.988 vs 1.018
• Around 99% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 31.027 vs 15.605
• 3.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 107.094 vs 31.155
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2961 vs 2646
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3683 vs 3493
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2961 vs 2646
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3683 vs 3493

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

• Around 2% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 29.81 GTexel / s
• Around 47% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 69% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 406 vs 240
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 386.006 vs 380.461

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 945M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2109 1586
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	240 406
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	8099 3973
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	28.633 14.283
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	380.461 386.006
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.988 1.018
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.027 15.605
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	107.094 31.155
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2961 2646
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3683 3493
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3343 3339
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2961 2646
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3683 3493
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3343 3339

Compare specifications (specs)