NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 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) 6 month(s) later
• Around 35% higher core clock speed: 1076 MHz vs 797 MHz
• Around 64% higher boost clock speed: 1480 MHz vs 902 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• 3x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 225 Watt
• Around 17% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 6008 MHz
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 644 vs 543
• Around 69% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 vs 67.178
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 vs 355.166

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K6000

• 2.3x more texture fill rate: 216.5 GTexel / s vs 94.72 GTexel / s
• 3.8x more pipelines: 2880 vs 768
• Around 71% better floating-point performance: 5,196 gflops vs 3,031 gflops
• 2.4x more maximum memory size: 12 GB vs 5 GB
• Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8059 vs 6935
• Around 2% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22920 vs 22509
• Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1816.61 vs 1414.794
• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.435 vs 6.736
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 88.889 vs 81.206
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12657 vs 10251
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3711 vs 3681
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3316
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12657 vs 10251
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3711 vs 3681
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3316

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K6000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6935 8059
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	644 543
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	22509 22920
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	113.416 67.178
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1414.794 1816.61
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.736 7.435
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	81.206 88.889
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	417.823 355.166
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 12657
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 3356
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 12657
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 3356

Compare specifications (specs)