NVIDIA Quadro K2000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M 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 K2000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 month(s) later
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1726 vs 1094
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 3176
• Around 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1726 vs 1094
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 3176

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M

• Around 12% higher core clock speed: 835 MHz vs 745 MHz
• Around 28% higher texture fill rate: 30.4 billion / sec vs 23.84 GTexel / s
• Around 28% better floating-point performance: 729.6 gflops vs 572.2 gflops
• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 55 Watt
• Around 11% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
• Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1445 vs 1005
• Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 269 vs 256
• Around 30% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4062 vs 3128
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.837 vs 8.142
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 405.086 vs 262.321
• Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.098 vs 0.741
• Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.798 vs 16.571
• Around 83% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 33.754 vs 18.406
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2253 vs 2207
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2253 vs 2207

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1005 1445
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	256 269
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	3128 4062
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.142 10.837
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	262.321 405.086
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.741 1.098
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.571 21.798
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	18.406 33.754
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1726 1094
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2207 2253
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3351 3176
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1726 1094
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2207 2253
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3351 3176

Compare specifications (specs)