Quadro K2000M vs Radeon R9 M375
Quadro K2000M
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 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 K2000M is positioned at rank 58 and the Radeon R9 M375 is on rank 565, 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 Radeon R9 M375
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K2000M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R9 M375 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / 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 | — | — |
💎 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 $300), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 906% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+906%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($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 K2000M and Radeon R9 M375
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.
Radeon R9 M375
The Radeon R9 M375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1015 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 998 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K2000M scores 1,004 and the Radeon R9 M375 reaches 998 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K2000M is built on Kepler while the Radeon R9 M375 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000M) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M375). Raw compute: 0.5722 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000M) vs 1.299 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M375).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,004 | 998 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 640+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5722 TFLOPS | 1.299 TFLOPS+127% |
| 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 K2000M | Radeon R9 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 K2000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 M375 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 M375 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 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: 11.1 (11_0) (Quadro K2000M) vs 11_1 (Radeon R9 M375). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 11_1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6+7% | 4.3 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Quadro K2000M) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 M375). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP5) vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000M) vs H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R9 M375).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP5) | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000M draws 55W versus the Radeon R9 M375's 75W — a 30.8% difference. The Quadro K2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000M) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M375). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-27% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 18.3+38% | 13.3 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000M costs 90% less ($270 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 33.5 (Quadro K2000M) vs 3.3 (Radeon R9 M375) — the Quadro K2000M offers 915.2% better value. The Radeon R9 M375 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K2000M | Radeon R9 M375 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $300 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-90% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 33.5+915% | 3.3 |
| Codename | GK107 | Tropo |
| Release | June 1 2012 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #886 | #889 |
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 Radeon R9 M375
