NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M 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 8 month(s) later
• Around 28% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 745 MHz
• Around 28% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 23.84 GTexel / s
• Around 28% better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 572.2 gflops
• Around 8% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 55 Watt
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 57% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1578 vs 1005
• Around 50% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 256
• Around 30% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4071 vs 3128
• Around 76% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.332 vs 8.142
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 265.424 vs 262.321
• Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.093 vs 0.741
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.219 vs 18.406
• Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2446 vs 1726
• Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2446 vs 1726

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 16.571 vs 15.009
• Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2207 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 1974
• Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2207 vs 1631
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 1974

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1578 1005
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	385 256
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4071 3128
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.332 8.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	265.424 262.321
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.093 0.741
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.009 16.571
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	38.219 18.406
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2446 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1631 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1974 3351

Compare specifications (specs)