NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M 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 K2000D

• Videocard is newer: launch date 11 month(s) later
• Around 60% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 598 MHz
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 384 vs 336
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 47% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 34% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1526 MB
• 2.7x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1500 MHz
• Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 406 vs 303

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

• Around 10% higher texture fill rate: 33.5 billion / sec vs 30.53 GTexel / s
• Around 10% better floating-point performance: 803.7 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1746 vs 1586
• Around 61% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6392 vs 3973
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.053 vs 14.283
• Around 52% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 vs 386.006
• Around 69% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.72 vs 1.018
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.916 vs 15.605
• Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 52.899 vs 31.155
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2731 vs 2646
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 vs 3493
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2731 vs 2646
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 vs 3493

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1586 1746
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	406 303
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	3973 6392
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.283 15.053
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	386.006 588.645
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.018 1.72
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.605 35.916
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.155 52.899
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2646 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3493 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 3346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2646 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3493 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3339 3346

Compare specifications (specs)