NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2000 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. 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 P2000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 13% higher core clock speed: 1076 MHz vs 954 MHz
• 3.1x more texture fill rate: 94.72 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
• 2x more pipelines: 768 vs 384
• 4.1x better floating-point performance: 3,031 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.5x more maximum memory size: 5 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 75% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 4000 MHz
• 4.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6957 vs 1578
• Around 64% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 630 vs 385
• 5.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22896 vs 4071
• 7.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 vs 14.332
• 5.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1414.794 vs 265.424
• 6.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 vs 1.093
• 5.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 81.206 vs 15.009
• 10.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 vs 38.219
• 4.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 vs 2446
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3681 vs 1631
• Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3316 vs 1974
• 4.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 vs 2446
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3681 vs 1631
• Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3316 vs 1974

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000

• Around 47% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 75 Watt

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6957 1578
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	630 385
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	22896 4071
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	113.416 14.332
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1414.794 265.424
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.736 1.093
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	81.206 15.009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	417.823 38.219
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 1974
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 2446
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 1631
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 1974

Compare specifications (specs)