
Quadro M2000
Popular choices:

Quadro K5000
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K5000.
| Insight | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M2000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $60), it costs 17% less, resulting in a 21.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+21.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($60) |
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 M2000 and Quadro K5000

Quadro M2000
The Quadro M2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 8 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 796 MHz to 1163 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,026 points. Launch price was $437.75.

Quadro K5000
The Quadro K5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 17 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 706 MHz to 706 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 122W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,989 points. Launch price was $2,499.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M2000 scores 4,026 and the Quadro K5000 reaches 3,989 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M2000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro K5000 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 768 (Quadro M2000) vs 1,536 (Quadro K5000). Raw compute: 1.786 TFLOPS (Quadro M2000) vs 2.169 TFLOPS (Quadro K5000). Boost clocks: 1163 MHz vs 706 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,026 | 3,989 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1536+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.786 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS+21% |
| Boost Clock | 1163 MHz+65% | 706 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128+167% |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB+125% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Quadro M2000) vs 0.5 MB (Quadro K5000) — the Quadro M2000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_1 (Quadro M2000) vs 12_0 (Quadro K5000). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd Gen (Quadro M2000) vs NVENC 2nd Gen (Quadro K5000). Decoder: NVDEC 2nd Gen vs NVDEC 1st Gen.
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 2nd Gen | NVENC 2nd Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2nd Gen | NVDEC 1st Gen |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M2000 draws 75W versus the Quadro K5000's 122W — a 47.7% difference. The Quadro M2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M2000) vs 350W (Quadro K5000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 167mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-39% | 122W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 167mm | 267mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 53.7+64% | 32.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M2000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Quadro K5000 launched at $2499 and now averages $60. The Quadro M2000 costs 16.7% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 80.5 (Quadro M2000) vs 66.5 (Quadro K5000) — the Quadro M2000 offers 21.1% better value. The Quadro M2000 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro M2000 | Quadro K5000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-17% | $60 |
| Performance per Dollar | 80.5+21% | 66.5 |
| Codename | GM206 | GK104 |
| Release | April 8 2016 | August 17 2012 |
| Ranking | #491 | #492 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















