NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 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 11 month(s) later
- Around 12% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 652.8 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1582 vs 1202
- Around 63% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 236
- Around 7% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 vs 3788
- Around 44% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 vs 9.947
- Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 vs 0.982
- Around 65% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 vs 23.111
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 2283
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1974 vs 1913
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 2283
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1974 vs 1913
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 vs 22 March 2012 |
| Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops vs 652.8 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1582 vs 1202 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 vs 236 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 vs 3788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 vs 9.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 vs 0.982 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 vs 23.111 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 vs 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 vs 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 vs 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 vs 1913 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
- Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 51 Watt
- Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 340.824 vs 265.424
- Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 18.773 vs 15.009
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3299 vs 1631
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3299 vs 1631
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 51 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 vs 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.773 vs 15.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 vs 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 vs 1631 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1582 | 1202 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 236 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | 3788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 | 9.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 340.824 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 | 0.982 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 18.773 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 | 23.111 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3299 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3299 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 1913 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 414 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Code name | GK107 | GK107 |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1212 | 1215 |
| 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 | 652.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,270 million |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 384 | |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| 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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K2000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 625M
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 745A
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M260X
