NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M4000 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 M4000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• 2.6x more texture fill rate: 80.39 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
• 4.3x more pipelines: 1664 vs 384
• 3.5x better floating-point performance: 2,573 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 50% higher memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 4000 MHz
• 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 vs 1578
• Around 75% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 673 vs 385
• 4.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18372 vs 4071
• 4.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.548 vs 14.332
• 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 732.046 vs 265.424
• 5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.453 vs 1.093
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 17.725 vs 15.009
• 5.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 217.357 vs 38.219
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6291 vs 2446
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 1631
• Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3332 vs 1974
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6291 vs 2446
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 1631
• Around 69% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3332 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 23% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 773 MHz
• 2.4x lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 120 Watt

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6680 1578
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	673 385
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	18372 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	65.548 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	732.046 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.453 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	17.725 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	217.357 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6291 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3332 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6291 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3332 1974

Compare specifications (specs)