NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M 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 4 month(s) later
- 4x more pipelines: 384 vs 96
- 3.1x better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 240.0 gflops
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- 3.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 vs 479
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 vs 141
- Around 83% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 vs 2229
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 999
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 999
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 March 2013 vs 1 October 2012 |
Pipelines | 384 vs 96 |
Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops vs 240.0 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 vs 479 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 vs 141 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 vs 2229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 vs 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 vs 999 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
- 3.4x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 51 Watt
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2333 vs 1631
- Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3257 vs 1974
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2333 vs 1631
- Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3257 vs 1974
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 51 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2333 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3257 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2333 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3257 vs 1974 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1580 | 479 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 | 141 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 2229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3257 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3257 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |
Code name | GK107 | GF117 |
Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 1 October 2012 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
Place in performance rating | 1212 | 1213 |
Price now | $164.99 | |
Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 954 MHz | |
Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 96 |
Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 15 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 585 million |
CUDA cores | 96 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 202 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |