Quadro K2000 vs Radeon R9 M275X / M375
Quadro K2000
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 M275X / M375
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 Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is on rank 469, so the Quadro K2000 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 Radeon R9 M275X / M375
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 holds the technical lead. Priced at $300 (vs $500), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 65.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+65.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅More affordable ($300) |
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 Radeon R9 M275X / M375
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.
Radeon R9 M275X / M375
The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,575 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000 scores 1,582 and the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 reaches 1,575 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000 is built on Kepler while the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375). Raw compute: 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000) vs 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275X / M375).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,582 | 1,575 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 640+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 1.184 TFLOPS+62% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40+25% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 160 KB+400% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K2000 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000) vs 12_0 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st gen (Quadro K2000) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375). Decoder: NVDEC 1st gen vs UVD 4.2.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st gen | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1st gen | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000 draws 51W versus the Radeon R9 M275X / M375's 75W — a 38.1% difference. The Quadro K2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M275X / M375). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Card length: 202mm vs 1mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 51W-32% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 202mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 31.0+48% | 21.0 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 launched at $300 and now averages $300. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 costs 40% less ($200 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.2 (Quadro K2000) vs 5.3 (Radeon R9 M275X / M375) — the Radeon R9 M275X / M375 offers 65.6% better value. The Radeon R9 M275X / M375 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | Radeon R9 M275X / M375 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $300-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $300-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.2 | 5.3+66% |
| Codename | GK107 | Venus |
| Release | March 1 2013 | January 28 2014 |
| Ranking | #756 | #746 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2000 and Radeon R9 M275X / M375
