NVIDIA Quadro P2000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Tesla K20m 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 4 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• Around 52% higher core clock speed: 1076 MHz vs 706 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 35% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 5200 MHz
• Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6935 vs 4432
• 3.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 644 vs 210
• Around 55% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22533 vs 14510
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 113.416 vs 54.89
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.736 vs 5.303
• Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 417.823 vs 250.291
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10251 vs 8319
• Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10251 vs 8319

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla K20m

• Around 55% higher texture fill rate: 146.8 GTexel / s vs 94.72 GTexel / s
• 3.3x more pipelines: 2496 vs 768
• Around 16% better floating-point performance: 3,524 gflops vs 3,031 gflops
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 83.807 vs 81.206
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7337 vs 3681
• 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 10873 vs 3316
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7337 vs 3681
• 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 10873 vs 3316

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla K20m

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6935 4432
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	644 210
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	22533 14510
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	113.416 54.89
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1414.794 1414.755
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.736 5.303
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	81.206 83.807
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	417.823 250.291
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 8319
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 7337
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 10873
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10251 8319
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3681 7337
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3316 10873

Compare specifications (specs)