
Quadro K2000 vs Quadro K2000D

Quadro K2000
Popular choices:

Quadro K2000D
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K2000 is positioned at rank 261 and the Quadro K2000D is on rank 257, so the Quadro K2000D offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000D
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2000D is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2000.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K2000D offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K2000D holds the technical lead. Priced at $35 (vs $500), it costs 93% less, resulting in a 1344.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1344.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($35) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K2000 and Quadro K2000D

Quadro K2000
The Quadro K2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 954 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 51W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,582 points. Launch price was $599.

Quadro K2000D
The Quadro K2000D is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 954 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 51W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,600 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000 scores 1,582 and the Quadro K2000D reaches 1,600 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000 is built on Kepler while the Quadro K2000D uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000) vs 384 (Quadro K2000D). Raw compute: 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000) vs 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000D).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,582 | 1,600+1% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 0.7327 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000D). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st gen (Quadro K2000) vs NVENC 1st Gen (Quadro K2000D). Decoder: NVDEC 1st gen vs NVDEC 1st Gen. Supported codecs: H.264 (Quadro K2000) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000D).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st gen | NVENC 1st Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1st gen | NVDEC 1st Gen |
| Codecs | H.264 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000 draws 51W versus the Quadro K2000D's 51W — a 0% difference. The Quadro K2000D is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000) vs 350W (Quadro K2000D). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 202mm vs 202mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 51W | 51W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 202mm | 202mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 31.0 | 31.4+1% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Quadro K2000D launched at $599 and now averages $35. The Quadro K2000D costs 93% less ($465 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.2 (Quadro K2000) vs 45.7 (Quadro K2000D) — the Quadro K2000D offers 1328.1% better value.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Quadro K2000D |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $35-93% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.2 | 45.7+1328% |
| Codename | GK107 | GK107 |
| Release | March 1 2013 | March 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #756 | #750 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















