Quadro K2000D vs Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Quadro K2000D
Popular choices:
Iris Pro Graphics P6300
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 K2000D is positioned at rank #257 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 K2000D
Performance Per Dollar
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 and 100+% more VRAM (2 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Iris Pro Graphics P6300.
| Insight | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 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 $50), it costs 30% less, resulting in a 44.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+44.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($35) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) |
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 K2000D and Iris Pro Graphics P6300
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.
Iris Pro Graphics P6300
The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 5 2014. It features the Generation 8.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 800 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,582 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000D scores 1,600 and the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 reaches 1,582 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000D is built on Kepler while the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses Generation 8.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000D) vs 384 (Iris Pro Graphics P6300). Raw compute: 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000D) vs 0.6144 TFLOPS (Iris Pro Graphics P6300).
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,600+1% | 1,582 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 8.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7327 TFLOPS+19% | 0.6144 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16+167% | 6 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Quadro K2000D comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has 0 MB. The Quadro K2000D offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs System.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | System |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000D) vs 12 (11_1) (Iris Pro Graphics P6300). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2+9% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000D draws 51W versus the Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 15W — a 109.1% difference. The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000D) vs 1W (Iris Pro Graphics P6300). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Integrated. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 51W | 15W-71% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Integrated |
| Length | 202mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 31.4 | 105.5+236% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000D launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $35, while the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 launched at $150 and now averages $50. The Quadro K2000D costs 30% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 45.7 (Quadro K2000D) vs 31.6 (Iris Pro Graphics P6300) — the Quadro K2000D offers 44.6% better value. The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $150-75% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35-30% | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 45.7+45% | 31.6 |
| Codename | GK107 | Broadwell GT3e |
| Release | March 1 2013 | September 5 2014 |
| Ranking | #750 | #755 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2000D and Iris Pro Graphics P6300
