NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE 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 K2000D

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 30% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 736 MHz
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 384 vs 288
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 2.9x lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 150 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 4% higher memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 3828 MHz
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3493 vs 3114
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3493 vs 3114

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE

• Around 16% higher texture fill rate: 35.33 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
• Around 16% better floating-point performance: 847.9 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1914 vs 1577
• Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 423 vs 410
• Around 61% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6235 vs 3883
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.456 vs 14.283
• Around 60% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 618.773 vs 386.006
• Around 66% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.693 vs 1.018
• Around 75% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 27.232 vs 15.605
• Around 61% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 50.114 vs 31.155
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 vs 2646
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3339
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 vs 2646
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3339

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1577 1914
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	410 423
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	3883 6235
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.283 18.456
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	386.006 618.773
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.018 1.693
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.605 27.232
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.155 50.114
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2646 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3493 3114
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 3356
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2646 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3493 3114
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 3356

Compare specifications (specs)