NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs ATI Radeon HD 5750

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and ATI Radeon HD 5750 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 Quadro K2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 36% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 700 MHz
• Around 21% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 25.2 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 69% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 86 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 35% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1578 vs 1168
• Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 338
• 3.9x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 vs 1039
• Around 94% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 vs 7.384
• Around 61% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 vs 0.679
• Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 2124
• Around 15% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 2124

Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 5750

• Around 88% higher pipelines: 720 vs 384
• Around 38% better floating-point performance: 1,008.0 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 15% higher memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 4000 MHz
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 460.31 vs 265.424
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.118 vs 15.009
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 53.346 vs 38.219
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1757 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 vs 1974
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1757 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 vs 1974

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5750

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1578 1168
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	385 338
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4071 1039
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.332 7.384
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	265.424 460.31
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.093 0.679
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.009 23.118
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	38.219 53.346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 2124
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 1757
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3347
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 2124
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 1757
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3347

Compare specifications (specs)