NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 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 K620
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 11% higher core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 954 MHz
- Around 18% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
- Around 24% lower typical power consumption: 41 Watt vs 51 Watt
- Around 41% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 vs 1578
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 vs 385
- Around 69% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6869 vs 4071
- Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.112 vs 14.332
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 297.631 vs 265.424
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.427 vs 1.093
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 15.363 vs 15.009
- 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 vs 38.219
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 vs 2446
- Around 53% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2490 vs 1631
- Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3329 vs 1974
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 vs 2446
- Around 53% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2490 vs 1631
- Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3329 vs 1974
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 vs 1 March 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz vs 954 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 732.7 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt vs 51 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 vs 1578 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 vs 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 vs 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.112 vs 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 297.631 vs 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.427 vs 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.363 vs 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 99.125 vs 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2970 vs 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2490 vs 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 vs 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 vs 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2490 vs 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 vs 1974 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Around 70% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 | 1578 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 | 385 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.112 | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 297.631 | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.427 | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.363 | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 99.125 | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2970 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2490 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 | 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2490 | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 | 1974 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 702 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Code name | GM107 | GK107 |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 1 March 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | $599 |
| Place in performance rating | 953 | 1206 |
| Price now | $189.93 | $164.99 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 15.23 | 11.74 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 30.53 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | 51 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 1,270 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, DVI-I DP | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 202 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||

