Quadro K2000 vs GeForce RTX 4070
Quadro K2000
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4070
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. The Quadro K2000 is positioned at rank #261 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000
Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 4070
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 4070 is significantly newer (2023 vs 2013). The GeForce RTX 4070 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K2000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1601.6% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (12 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2000.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1601.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1601.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (12 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (304mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 4070 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $550 (vs $500), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1446.9% better value per dollar than the Quadro K2000.
| Insight | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1446.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($500) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($550) |
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 GeForce RTX 4070
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.
GeForce RTX 4070
The GeForce RTX 4070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1920 MHz to 2475 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,919 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro K2000 scores 1,582 versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 26,919 — the GeForce RTX 4070 leads by 1601.6%. The Quadro K2000 is built on Kepler while the GeForce RTX 4070 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 28 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000) vs 5,888 (GeForce RTX 4070). Raw compute: 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000) vs 29.15 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,582 | 26,919+1602% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 5888+1433% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 29.15 TFLOPS+3878% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 184+475% |
| L1 Cache | 0.03 MB | 5.8 MB+19233% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 36 MB+14300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The Quadro K2000 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K2000 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4070 has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro K2000) vs 36 MB (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 12 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 36 MB+14300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4070). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st gen (Quadro K2000) vs 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (GeForce RTX 4070). Decoder: NVDEC 1st gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264 (Quadro K2000) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4070).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st gen | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1st gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000 draws 51W versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 200W — a 118.7% difference. The Quadro K2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000) vs 650W (GeForce RTX 4070). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Card length: 202mm vs 304mm, occupying 1 vs 3 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 51W-75% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-46% | 650W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | 202mm | 304mm |
| Height | 111mm | 137mm |
| Slots | 1-67% | 3 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 31.0 | 134.6+334% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce RTX 4070 launched at $599 and now averages $550. The Quadro K2000 costs 9.1% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.2 (Quadro K2000) vs 48.9 (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 offers 1428.1% better value. The GeForce RTX 4070 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K2000 | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500-9% | $550 |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.2 | 48.9+1428% |
| Codename | GK107 | AD104 |
| Release | March 1 2013 | April 12 2023 |
| Ranking | #756 | #32 |
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 GeForce RTX 4070
