Quadro K2000M vs Quadro 2000D
Quadro K2000M
Popular choices:
Quadro 2000D
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 K2000M is positioned at rank 58 and the Quadro 2000D is on rank 311, so the Quadro K2000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 2000D
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2000M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro 2000D offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K2000M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K2000M holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $40), it costs 25% less, resulting in a 36.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+36.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) |
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 K2000M and Quadro 2000D
Quadro K2000M
The Quadro K2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,004 points. Launch price was $265.27.
Quadro 2000D
The Quadro 2000D is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 5 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 62W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 980 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000M scores 1,004 and the Quadro 2000D reaches 980 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000M is built on Kepler while the Quadro 2000D uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000M) vs 192 (Quadro 2000D). Raw compute: 0.5722 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000M) vs 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000D).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,004+2% | 980 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+100% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5722 TFLOPS+19% | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 256 KB+700% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K2000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 2000D has 4 GB. The Quadro 2000D offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000M draws 55W versus the Quadro 2000D's 62W — a 12% difference. The Quadro K2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000M) vs 350W (Quadro 2000D). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-11% | 62W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 18.3+16% | 15.8 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000M costs 25% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 33.5 (Quadro K2000M) vs 24.5 (Quadro 2000D) — the Quadro K2000M offers 36.7% better value. The Quadro K2000M is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2011).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Quadro 2000D |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-25% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 33.5+37% | 24.5 |
| Codename | GK107 | GF106 |
| Release | June 1 2012 | October 5 2011 |
| Ranking | #886 | #892 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2000M and Quadro 2000D
