NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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) 10 month(s) later
- Around 73% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 550 MHz
- Around 73% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 17.6 GTexel / s
- 6x more pipelines: 384 vs 64
- 4.2x better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 176 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 16% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 59 Watt
- 2.7x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 768 MB
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1578 vs 402
- 6.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 57
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 March 2013 vs 30 March 2009 |
Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 550 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s vs 17.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 vs 64 |
Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops vs 176 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt vs 59 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 768 MB |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 vs 402 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 vs 57 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800
- Around 48% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2917 vs 1974
- Around 48% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2917 vs 1974
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2917 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2917 vs 1974 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 | 402 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 57 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 | |
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 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 2917 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 2917 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
Code name | GK107 | G94 |
Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 30 March 2009 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $489 |
Place in performance rating | 1206 | 1429 |
Price now | $164.99 | $186.29 |
Type | Workstation | Workstation |
Value for money (0-100) | 11.74 | 4.05 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 550 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops | 176 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 64 |
Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s | 17.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 59 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 505 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 202 mm | 198 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 768 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | 38.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |