NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M 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
• Around 34% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 22.7 billion / sec
• Around 35% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 544.5 gflops
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 69% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1580 vs 935
• 2.4x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 vs 160
• Around 52% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 vs 2673
• Around 69% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 vs 8.493
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 vs 0.863
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 vs 19.116
• Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1913
• Around 28% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1913

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M

• Around 59% lower typical power consumption: 32 Watt vs 51 Watt
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 285.42 vs 265.424
• Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.242 vs 15.009
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3670 vs 1631
• Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3341 vs 1974
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3670 vs 1631
• Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3341 vs 1974

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1580 935
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	384 160
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4071 2673
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.332 8.493
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	265.424 285.42
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.093 0.863
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.009 17.242
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	38.219 19.116
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 1913
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 3670
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3341
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 1913
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 3670
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3341

Compare specifications (specs)