Quadro 4000 vs Quadro K2000 Graphics cards Comparison
When comparing Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000, we look primarily at benchmarks and game tests. But it is not only about the numbers. Often you can find third-party models with higher clock speeds, better cooling, or a customizable RGB lighting. Not all of them will have all the features you need. Another thing to consider is the port selection. Most graphics cards have at least one DisplayPort and HDMI interface, but some monitors require DVI. Before you buy, check the TDP of the graphics card — this characteristic will help you estimate the consumption of the graphics card. You may even have to upgrade your PSU to meet its requirements. An important factor when choosing between Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 is the price. Does the additional cost justify the performance hit? Our comparison should help you make the right decision.
Quadro 4000
Check Price
Quadro K2000
Check Price
Main Specs
Quadro 4000 | Quadro K2000 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 51 Watt |
Interface | PCIe 2. 0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Check Price |
Check Price |
- Quadro 4000 has 178% more power consumption, than Quadro K2000.
- Both video cards are using PCIe 2.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
- Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have maximum RAM of 2 GB.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- Quadro 4000 is build with Fermi architecture, and Quadro K2000 — with Kepler.
- Core clock speed of Quadro K2000 is 479 MHz higher, than Quadro 4000.
- Quadro 4000 is manufactured by 40 nm process technology, and Quadro K2000 — by 28 nm process technology.
- Quadro 4000 is 39 mm longer, than Quadro K2000.
- Memory clock speed of Quadro K2000 is 1192 MHz higher, than Quadro 4000.
Game benchmarks
Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks | ||
high / 1080p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
ultra / 1080p | 4−5 | 4−5 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 9−10 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 10−11 | 10−12 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
medium / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Battlefield 5. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
high / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
low / 768p | 130−140 | 140−150 |
medium / 768p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 30−35 |
4K / 2160p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
high / 768p | 80−85 | 85−90 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 5% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
low / 768p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 21−24 |
medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 2% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
low / 768p | 80−85 | 80−85 |
medium / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 35−40 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Dota 2 is 1% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
high / 1080p | 8−9 | 9−10 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
4K / 2160p | 3−4 | 4−5 |
low / 720p | 18−20 | 20−22 |
medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 9−10 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Far Cry 5 is 11% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
high / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
ultra / 1080p | 10−11 | 10−12 |
low / 720p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 21−24 | 24−27 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Fortnite is 3% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 10−12 | 10−12 |
QHD / 1440p | 1−2 | 1−2 |
low / 720p | 24−27 | 27−30 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Forza Horizon 4. | ||
low / 768p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
medium / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in Grand Theft Auto V is 6% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
high / 1080p | 5−6 | 5−6 |
ultra / 1080p | 3−4 | 3−4 |
4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Metro Exodus. | ||
low / 768p | 95−100 | 95−100 |
high / 1080p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 80−85 |
medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Minecraft. | ||
high / 1080p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS. | ||
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 7−8 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 10−12 |
Quadro 4000 and Quadro K2000 have the same average FPS in Red Dead Redemption 2. | ||
low / 768p | 24−27 | 27−30 |
medium / 768p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
high / 1080p | 9−10 | 10−11 |
ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 6−7 |
4K / 2160p | 6−7 | 6−7 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 7% more, than Quadro 4000. | ||
low / 768p | 85−90 | 85−90 |
medium / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 20−22 |
high / 768p | 35−40 | 35−40 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K2000 in World of Tanks is 2% more, than Quadro 4000. |
Full Specs
Quadro 4000 | Quadro K2000 | |
Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |
Code name | GF100 | GK107 |
Type | Workstation | Workstation |
Release date | 2 November 2010 | 1 March 2013 |
Pipelines | 256 | 384 |
Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 954 MHz |
Transistor count | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Texture fill rate | 15. 20 | 30.53 |
Floating-point performance | 486.4 gflops | 732.7 gflops |
Length | 241 mm | 202 mm |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 2808 MHz | 4000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | 2.0 | 3.0 |
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 44 Mh/s | 24 Mh/s |
Check Price |
Check Price |
Similar compares
- Quadro 4000 vs Radeon HD 7870M
- Quadro 4000 vs UHD Graphics G7 Lakefield GT2 64 EU
- Quadro K2000 vs Radeon HD 7870M
- Quadro K2000 vs UHD Graphics G7 Lakefield GT2 64 EU
- Quadro 4000 vs GeForce GT 755M
- Quadro 4000 vs Radeon E8860
- Quadro K2000 vs GeForce GT 755M
- Quadro K2000 vs Radeon E8860
Nvidia Quadro 4000 vs Nvidia Quadro K2000: What is the difference?
27points
Nvidia Quadro 4000
30points
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
54 facts in comparison
Nvidia Quadro 4000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
Why is Nvidia Quadro 4000 better than Nvidia Quadro K2000?
- 25. 9GB/s more memory bandwidth?
89.9GB/svs64GB/s - 128bit wider memory bus width?
256bitvs128bit - 1830million more transistors?
3100 millionvs1270 million - 16 more render output units (ROPs)?
32vs16 - 282 higher PassMark (G3D) result?
1917vs1635
Why is Nvidia Quadro K2000 better than Nvidia Quadro 4000?
- 479MHz faster GPU clock speed?
954MHzvs475MHz - 0.25 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
0.73 TFLOPSvs0.49 TFLOPS - 91W lower TDP?
51Wvs142W - 298MHz faster memory clock speed?
1000MHzvs702MHz - 1192MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
4000MHzvs2808MHz - 15.3 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
30.5 GTexels/svs15.2 GTexels/s - 128 more shading units?
384vs256 - 12nm smaller semiconductor size?
28nmvs40nm
Which are the most popular comparisons?
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro K4000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro P5000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 2000
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M2000
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
AMD Radeon Pro W5700
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M6000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 2000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 960 Gaming
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M4000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia Quadro K2000D
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 600
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Gaming
Price comparison
User reviews
Performance
1. GPU clock speed
475MHz
954MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.GPU turbo
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
3.pixel rate
7.6 GPixel/s
7.63 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
4.floating-point performance
0.49 TFLOPS
0.73 TFLOPS
Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.
5.texture rate
15.2 GTexels/s
30.5 GTexels/s
The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
702MHz
1000MHz
The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.
7.shading units
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.
8.texture mapping units (TMUs)
TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.
9.render output units (ROPs)
The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.
Memory
1.effective memory speed
2808MHz
4000MHz
The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.
2. maximum memory bandwidth
89.9GB/s
64GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4.memory bus width
256bit
128bit
A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.
5.version of GDDR memory
Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.
6.Supports ECC memory
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
Features
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
2.OpenGL version
OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
3.OpenCL version
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
4.Supports multi-display technology
✔Nvidia Quadro 4000
✔Nvidia Quadro K2000
The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.
5.load GPU temperature
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.
7.Supports 3D
✔Nvidia Quadro 4000
✔Nvidia Quadro K2000
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.
9.PassMark (G3D) result
This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.
Ports
1.has an HDMI output
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.
2.HDMI ports
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.
3.HDMI version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4.DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.
5. DVI outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.
6.mini DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best graphics cards?
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory.
Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Buy on Amazon
vs
NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Around 18% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 810 MHz
- Around 57% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 80 Watt
Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 810 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt vs 80 Watt |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4000
- Around 70% higher texture fill rate: 51. 84 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 768 vs 384
- Around 70% better floating-point performance: 1,244 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
- Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 3 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 40% higher memory clock speed: 5616 MHz vs 4000 MHz
- Around 73% better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 2700 vs 1562
- Around 11% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 420 vs 379
- Around 44% better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 5875 vs 4071
- Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.451 vs 14.327
- Around 61% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 427.88 vs 265.424
- Around 76% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.898 vs 1.078
- Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.742 vs 15.009
- Around 65% better performance in CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 61.898 vs 37.514
- Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3798 vs 2446
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames): 3651 vs 1631
- Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames): 3321 vs 1974
- Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3798 vs 2446
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps): 3651 vs 1631
- Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps): 3321 vs 1974
Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 768 vs 384 |
Floating-point performance | 1,244 gflops vs 732.7 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 3 GB vs 2 GB |
Memory clock speed | 5616 MHz vs 4000 MHz |
PassMark — G3D Mark | 2700 vs 1562 |
PassMark — G2D Mark | 420 vs 379 |
Geekbench — OpenCL | 5875 vs 4071 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.451 vs 14.327 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 427.88 vs 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.898 vs 1.078 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.742 vs 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.898 vs 37.514 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3798 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3651 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3321 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3798 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3651 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3321 vs 1974 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000
PassMark — G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark — G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench — OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark — G3D Mark | 1562 | 2700 |
PassMark — G2D Mark | 379 | 420 |
Geekbench — OpenCL | 4071 | 5875 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.327 | 18.451 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 | 427.88 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.078 | 1.898 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 | 23.742 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 37.514 | 61.898 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 | 3798 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 | 3651 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3321 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 | 3798 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 | 3651 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3321 |
3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 0 | 817 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
Code name | GK107 | GK106 |
Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 1 March 2013 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $1,269 |
Place in performance rating | 1097 | 779 |
Price now | $164. 99 | $225.65 |
Type | Workstation | Workstation |
Value for money (0-100) | 11.74 | 14.81 |
Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 810 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops | 1,244 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 768 |
Texture fill rate | 30. 53 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 80 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 2,540 million |
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 202 mm | 241 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
DirectX | 12. 0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | 134.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 5616 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Quadro K2000 vs Quadro K4000 GPU Comparison
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K2000 2 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 3 GB, specs and GPU benchmark score. Which is the better graphics card for the money?
GPU Comparison
Quickly search and compare graphics cards
Price
The cheapest price from our partner retailers
$ 140
$ 82.71
significantly less expensive
Overall Score
General gaming and workstation score
8 %
60%
significantly better overall score
Flux Core frame rate
Volumetric ray casting test, a computationally expensive method of rendering high-quality scenes
10 FPS
4 FPS
significantly higher Flux Core frame rate
Electron frame rate
Randomly generated noise sphere test
6 FPS
2 FPS
significantly higher Electron frame rate
City frame rate
Procedurally generated city scene with voxel rendering
114 FPS
109 FPS
significantly higher City frame rate
Clouds frame rate
Real-time noise calculation and ray marching test
5 FPS
2 FPS
significantly higher Clouds frame rate
Want to compare your graphics card against the Quadro K2000 and the Quadro K4000? Download our free and quick PC Performance Test.
Download GPU Benchmark
Geekbench (CUDA) score
CUDA compute benchmark
5,210
70%
significantly higher Geekbench (CUDA) score
Geekbench (Metal) score
Metal compute benchmark
3,574
74%
significantly higher Geekbench (Metal) score
Geekbench (OpenCL) score
OpenCL compute benchmark
6,816
67%
significantly higher Geekbench (OpenCL) score
Geekbench (Vulkan) score
Vulkan compute benchmark
6,504
75%
significantly higher Geekbench (Vulkan) score
Memory
Onboard memory size for textures and vertices
3 GiB
49%
significantly more memory
Memory Bus Width
Number of parallel lines to the memory chips
128 Bit
192 Bit
49%
significantly larger memory bus width
Memory Bandwidth
Data transfer speed between GPU core and memory
64 GB/s
135 GB/s
110%
significantly higher memory bandwidth
TDP
Thermal Design Power: Measure of heat generated by the GPU
51 W
56%
significantly lower TDP
Pixel Rate
Number of pixels that can be rendered per second
8 Gigapixels/s
13 Gigapixels/s
69%
significantly higher pixel rate
Texture Rate
Number of textured pixels that can be rendered per second
31 Gigatexels/s
52 Gigatexels/s
69%
significantly higher texture rate
Shading Units
Number of processors dedicated to shader processing
768
100%
significantly more shading units
Texture Mapping Units
Number of processors dedicated to applying textures
64
100%
significantly more texture mapping units
Render Output Processors
Number of processors dedicated to final pixel rendering
24
49%
significantly more render output processors
Rank
Ranking in the hardwareDB database
339th
of 526
283rd
of 526
Release date
The official date of release of this chip
March 2013
March 2013
Memory Type
The type of memory used by this chip
GDDR5
GDDR5
DirectX Support
Maximum version of DirectX supported
11. 0
11.0
OpenGL Support
Maximum version of OpenGL supported
4.5
4.5
Quadro K2000 vs Quadro K4000 benchmarks
For gaming, the Quadro K4000 graphics card is better than the Quadro K2000 in our tests.
Next up, in terms of GPU memory, the Quadro K4000 has significantly more memory with 3 GiB of memory compared to 2 GiB. Memory size doesn’t directly affect performance, but too little memory will certainly degrade gaming performance.
In addition, the Quadro K2000 has a significantly lower TDP at 51 W when compared to the Quadro K4000 at 80 W. This is not a measure of performance, but rather the amount of heat generated by the chip when running at its highest speed.
According to the results of the hardwareDB benchmark utility, the Quadro K4000 is faster than the Quadro K2000.
Latest posts
How to choose a power supply for your gaming PC: wattage and efficiencyJuly 11, 2022
How to compare GPUs and GPUs: find the best components for gamingJuly 02, 2022
Best PC benchmarking tools 2022: how to performance test your gaming PCJuly 02, 2022
Popular GPU Comparisons
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce RTX 2070 vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 3060
Radeon RX 570 vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs AMD FirePro W4100.
GPU Comparison Specs & Benchmark
VS
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
AMD FirePro W4100
General info
The general info section in the graphics cards comparison list contains information about the date of release, type, overall rating and other useful data for identifying winner between NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs AMD FirePro W4100.
532
Place in performance rating
534
12.99
Value for money (0-100)
6.55
Kepler
Architecture
GCN
GK107
Code name
Cape Verde
Workstation
Type
Workstation
1 March 2013 (8 years ago)
Release date
2 October 2015 (6 years ago)
$599
Launch price (MSRP)
no data
$1172 (2x MSRP)
Price now
$212
0.23
Value for money
4.56
GK107
GPU code name
Cape Verde
Workstation
Market segment
Workstation
Technical specs
Which GPU is better between NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs AMD FirePro W4100 in the fabrication process, power consumption, and also base and turbo frequency of the GPU is the most important part containing in the graphics cards hierarchy.
384
Pipelines
512
954 MHz
Core clock speed
630 MHz
1,270 million
Transistor count
1,500 million
28 nm
Manufacturing process technology
28 nm
51 Watt
Power consumption (TDP)
50 Watt
30.53
Texture fill rate
20.16
732.7 gflops
Floating-point performance
645.1 gflops
384
Pipelines / CUDA cores
512
1,270 million
Number of transistors
1,500 million
51 Watt
Thermal design power (TDP)
400 Watt
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Let’s discuss how graphics cards NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD FirePro W4100 come in different sizes (length), connector types and types of interfaces.
PCIe 2.0 x16
Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16
202 mm
Length
171 mm
None
Supplementary power connectors
None
no data
Bus support
PCIe 3.0
no data
Form factor
low profile / half length
Memory
Graphics cards memory plays important role both in gaming and in applications for graphics. The card will perform much quicker and better, if it has more memory capacity and right memory type. What is the difference between NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs AMD FirePro W4100.
GDDR5
Memory type
GDDR5
2 GB
Maximum RAM amount
2 GB
128 Bit
Memory bus width
128 Bit
4000 MHz
Memory clock speed
4000 MHz
64 GB/s
Memory bandwidth
72 GB/s
no data
Shared memory
—
Video outputs and ports
Let’s find out the difference in extra ports between two graphics cards. What’s the difference between NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs AMD FirePro W4100.
1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Display Connectors
4x mini-DisplayPort
no data
Dual-link DVI support
1
Technologies
Let’s have a look what is the difference. It is worthwhile to note that NVIDIA and AMD are using different technologies.
no data
AppAcceleration
+
no data
PowerPlay
+
API support
The confrontation between the two contenders NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD FirePro W4100 is practically over. The hardware support (API) does not greatly affect the overall performance, it is not considered in synthetic benchmarks and other performance tests.
12 (11_0)
DirectX
12 (11_1)
4.6
OpenGL
4.6
+
Vulkan
1.2.131
no data
Shader Model
5.1
no data
OpenCL
1.2
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 versus AMD FirePro W4100 performance benchmarks comparison
Popular comparisons containing this graphics cards
1. | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
2. | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
3. | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs. NVIDIA Quadro P520 | |
4. | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | |
5. | AMD Cypress vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
6. | AMD Baffin vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
7. | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs. AMD Radeon HD 7660G | |
8. | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs. AMD Radeon 540X | |
9. | AMD Cedar vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
10. | AMD Tonga vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
11. | NVIDIA NVS 810 vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
12. | AMD Radeon HD 8400 vs. NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
13. | AMD Bonaire vs. AMD FirePro W4100 | |
14. | AMD Radeon Sky 500 vs. NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
15. | AMD Cayman vs. AMD FirePro W4100 |
VGA Bios Collection: NVIDIA Quadro 4000 1024 MB
- VGA BIOS Collection
- Quadro 4000
- NVIDIA Quadro 4000
- NVIDIA Quadro 4000 1024 MB BIOS
Warning: You are viewing an unverified BIOS file.
This upload has not been verified by us in any way (like we do for the entries listed under the ‘AMD’, ‘ATI’ and ‘NVIDIA’ sections).
Please exercise caution when flashing it to your graphics card, and always have a backup.
Filename: | 163865.rom |
---|---|
VBIOS Version: | 70.06.3F.00.01 |
UEFI Supported: | No |
BIOS Build date: | 2011-06-24 00:00:00 |
Date added: | 2014-11-02 15:20:31 |
VBIOS Size: | 59 KB |
MD5 Hash: | 1a368aa0eac41ecc6232f30e737ddfac |
SHA1 Hash: | 0e68a83b300abd3ed6751761cfa78c253c8572f0 |
Same Bios: | PNY Quadro 2000, Leadtek Quadro K2000, HP Quadro K2000, Lenovo Quadro 2000 |
Placeholder picture (may not match the card exactly)
View all Quadro 2000 specs in our GPU Database
GPU Device Id: 0x10DE 0x0DD8 Version: 70. 06.3F.00.01 GF106 P1232 QS VGA BIOS Copyright (C) 1996-2011 NVIDIA Corp. GF106 Board — 12320500 Connectors 1x DVI-I 2x DisplayPort Fan Speed Min: 30% Max: 100% Memory Support GDDR5, Samsung GDDR5, Unknown GDDR5, Hynix Performance Level 0 Core Clk: 51.00 MHz Mem Clk: 68.00 MHz Shader Clk: 101.00 MHz Voltage: 0.8500 V Performance Level 1 Core Clk: 405.00 MHz Mem Clk: 162.00 MHz Shader Clk: 810.00 MHz Voltage: by ASIC (0.8625 V — 0.8875 V) Performance Level 3 Core Clk: 626.00 MHz Mem Clk: 652.00 MHz Shader Clk: 1251.00 MHz Voltage: by ASIC (0.8625 V — 0.9750 V) User Voltage limit: below 1.0250 V |
Manufacturer: | NVIDIA |
---|---|
Model: | Quadro 4000 |
Device Id: | 10DE 0DD8 |
Subsystem Id: | 10DE 084A |
Interface: | PCI-E |
Memory Size: | 1024 MB |
GPU Clock: | 626 MHz |
Memory Clock: | 652 MHz |
Memory Type: | GDDR5 |
NVIDIA, Quadro 4000, NVIDIA Quadro 2000,
Download Now
or Find compatible BIOS
Oct 3rd, 2022 16:40 CEST
change timezone
Sign in / Register
- NVIDIA GeForce 517. 48 WHQL
- AMD Radeon 22.9.2 Beta
-
Intel
IGP 101.3430
/
Arc 101.3430
-
by
Ferather5 headphones into windows 10 (11)
-
by
WhiteNoiseGPUs: what is enough? (34)
-
by
WhiteNoiseCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2 ?? (15)
-
by
ArcoWant to upgrade, but not sure to what and in what order. (1)
-
by
windwhirlTPU’s WCG/BOINC Team (34091)
-
by
LenneTPU’s Nostalgic Hardware Club (15344)
-
by
Bill_BrightSetup Gigabit fiber over a direct MOCA 2. 5 connection? (9)
-
by
freeagentRyzen Owners Zen Garden (4587)
-
by
robot zombieWhat are you playing? (16130)
-
by
INSTG8RUpgrade to 5600X or 5800X3D — gaming purpose 1440P/144HZ (12)
- AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Review — Impressive 16-core Powerhouse
- Asus Prime AP201 Review
- AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review — Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming
- AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Review — The Best Zen 4 for Gaming
- Intel Arc A750 & A770 Unboxing & Preview
- Red Dead Redemption 2: DLSS vs. FSR 2.0 Comparison Review
- ASRock NUC BOX-1260P Barebones Mini-PC (Intel Alder Lake) Review
- Upcoming Hardware Launches 2022 (Updated Aug 2022)
- Gigabyte Z690I AORUS Ultra Plus DDR4 Review
- AMD Ryzen 9 7900X Review — Creator Might, Priced Right
-
EVGA Announces Cancelation of NVIDIA Next-gen Graphics Cards Plans, Officially Terminates NVIDIA Partnership
(535) -
NVIDIA Project Beyond GTC Keynote Address: Expect the Expected (RTX 4090)
(332) -
Intel 13th Gen Core «Raptor Lake» Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift
(167) -
NVIDIA AD103 and AD104 Chips Powering RTX 4080 Series Detailed
(152) -
Microsoft Unveils the Windows 11 2022 Update, Available Today
(135) -
Key Slides from Intel 13th Gen «Raptor Lake» Launch Presentation Leak
(125) -
Google Calls it Quits on Game Streaming, Shutting Down Stadia
(124) -
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X CPU-Z Benched, Falls Short of Core i7-12700K in ST, Probably Due to Temperature Throttling
(123)
Nvidia Quadro 4000 vs Nvidia Quadro K2000: What is the difference?
27 BALLLA
NVIDIA QUADRO 4000
30 BALLLA
NVIDIA QUADRO K2000
VS
54 Facts compared to
NVIDIA QUADRO 4000 9000 K2000 9000
more than nvidia Qu
- 25. 9GB/s more memory bandwidth?
89.9GB/s vs 64GB/s - 128bit wider memory bus?
256bit vs 128bit - 1830million more transistors?
3100M vs 1270M - 16 more ROPs?
32 vs 16 - 282 higher PassMark (G3D) score?
1917 vs 1635
- GPU frequency 479MHz higher?
954MHz vs 475MHz - 0.25 TFLOPS above FLOPS?
0.73 TFLOPS vs 0.49 TFLOPS - 91W below TDP?
51W vs 142W - 298MHz faster memory speed?
1000MHz vs 702MHz - 1192MHz higher effective clock speed?
4000MHz vs 2808MHz - 15.3 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels?
30.5 GTexels/s vs 15.2 GTexels/s - 128 more stream processors?
384 vs 256 - Are 12nm semiconductors smaller?
28nm vs 40nm
Which comparisons are the most popular?
NVIDIA QUADRO 4000
VS
NVIDIA Q4000
NVIDIA Q2000
VS
NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 750 TI
NVIDIA QUADRO 4000
VS
9000 NVIDI0003
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 2000
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs AMD Radeon Pro
0003
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M6000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100
Nvidia Quadro 4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 2000
Nvidia Quadro K2000
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 960 Gaming0003
2. turbo GPU
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
3.pixel rate
7.6 GPixel/s
7.63 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
4.flops
0.49 TFLOPS
0.73 TFLOPS
FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.
5.texture size
15.2 GTexels/s
30.5 GTexels/s
Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
702MHz
1000MHz
Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.
7.shading patterns
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a graphics card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.
8.textured units (TMUs)
TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.
9 ROPs imaging units
ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.
Memory
1.memory effective speed
2808MHz
4000MHz
The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the size and data transfer rate of the memory. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.
2.max memory bandwidth
89.9GB/s
64GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3. VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4.memory bus width
256bit
128bit
Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.
5. GDDR memory versions
Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.
6.Supports memory troubleshooting code
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Memory troubleshooting code can detect and repair data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
Functions
1. DirectX version
DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.
2nd version of OpenGL
The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.
OpenCL version 3.
Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.
4. Supports multi-monitor technology
✔Nvidia Quadro 4000
✔Nvidia Quadro K2000
The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.
5. GPU temperature at boot
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
Lower boot temperature — this means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.
7.Supports 3D
✔Nvidia Quadro 4000
✔Nvidia Quadro K2000
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.
9. PassMark result (G3D)
This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.
Ports
1. has HDMI output
✖Nvidia Quadro 4000
✖Nvidia Quadro K2000
Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to an attached display.
2.HDMI connectors
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
More HDMI connections allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.
3rd HDMI version
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro 4000)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia Quadro K2000)
Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, resulting in higher resolutions and frame rates.
4.DisplayPort 9 outputs0003
Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows connection to a display using DVI.
Mini DisplayPort 6. outs
Allows connection to a display using Mini DisplayPort.
Price Match
Cancel
Which graphics cards are better?
Comparison of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory.
Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score, PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark.
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
versus
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Benefits
Reasons to choose NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
- Newer graphics card, release date difference 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 90 5% more core frequency 90 527 90 527 MHz vs 954 MHz
- 7287.9 times more texture speed: 222.5 GTexel/s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
- 6 times more shader processors: 2304 vs 384 912 nm vs 28 nm 19.7 times greater: 80254 vs 4071
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 19.7 times greater: 282.628 vs 14.327
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 — Surface Ocean Desktop Benchmark (Frames/s) 12.8 times bigger: 3403.106 vs 265.424
- 22.9x better performance in CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) benchmark: 24.719 vs 1.078
- 9.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark 26.9 times more: 136.919 vs 15.009
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) benchmark 26.9 times more: 1010.818 vs 37.514
- Performance in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 8.3 times a) more: 20206 vs 2446
- About 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) benchmark: 3714 vs 1631
- About 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark: 3359 vs 1974
- 2.3x greater performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) benchmark: 3714 vs 1631
- Performance in GFXBenchmark 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) about 70% more: 3359vs 1974
9002 8.3x greater performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) benchmark: 20206 vs 2446
Issue date | 13 November 2018 vs 1 March 2013 |
Core clock | 1005 MHz vs 954 MHz |
Texturing speed | 222. 5 GTexel/s vs 30.53 GTexel/s |
Number of shaders | 2304 vs 384 |
Process | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Maximum memory size | 8GB vs 2GB |
Geekbench — OpenCL | 80254 vs 4071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 282.628 vs 14.327 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3403.106 vs 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.719 vs 1.078 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.919 vs 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1010.818 vs 37.514 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 vs 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 1974 |
reasons to select NVIDIA QUADRO K2000
- at 3.1 times less energy consumption: 51 WATT VS 160 WATT
- Memory frequency by 2.5 times more: 4000 MHZ VS 1625 MHZ (13000 MHZ EFFECTIVE)
- AMD FirePro Display Driver 9.003.3.3;
- AMD 3ds Max 2010 and 3ds Max 2011 performance plugin;
- NVIDIA Quadro/NVS/Tesla/GRID Desktop Driver Release 320.00;
- NVIDIA 3ds Max Performance Driver 13.00.04.
9049
Benchmark comparison
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Geekbench — OpenCL |
|
|||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|||||
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|||||
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|||||
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|||||
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |
---|---|---|
Geekbench — OpenCL | 80254 | 4071 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 282.628 | 14.327 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3403.106 | 265.424 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 24.719 | 1.078 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 136.919 | 15.009 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1010.818 | 37.514 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20206 | 2446 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 1974 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20206 | 2446 |
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 1974 |
3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 7843 | 0 |
PassMark — G3D Mark | 1562 | |
PassMark — G2D Mark | 379 |
Feature comparison
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | |
---|---|---|
Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
Codename | TU104 | GK107 |
Generation GCN | Quadro RTX | |
Issue date | November 13, 2018 | March 1, 2013 |
Price at first issue date | $899 | $599 |
Place in the rating | 89 | 1097 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Price now | $164. 99 | |
Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 11.74 | |
Core clock in Boost mode | 1545 MHz | |
Core clock | 1005 MHz | 954MHz |
Process | 12nm | 28nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 222.5GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 14.24TFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 7. 119 TFLOPS | |
Number of shaders | 2304 | 384 |
Pixel fill rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | |
Render output units | 64 | |
Texturing speed | 222.5 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |
Texture Units | 144 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 51 Watt |
Number of transistors | 13600 million | 1,270 million |
Floating point performance | 732. 7 gflops | |
Video connectors | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 9.5 inches (241 mm) | 202 mm |
Additional power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4. 6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulcan | ||
Maximum memory size | 8GB | 2GB |
Memory bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
Memory bus width | 256bit | 128 Bit |
Memory frequency | 1625 MHz (13000 MHz effective) | 4000 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Version: | R352 U3 (353. 62) WHQL | |
Release Date: | 2015.7.29 | |
Operating System : | Windows 10 64-bit1442 235.71 MB | |
New in this driver: New in R352 branch: Quadro M6000, Quadro K6000, Quadro K5200, Quadro K5000, Quadro K4000 Quadro K4200 Quadro K2200 Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000D Quadro K1200 Quadro K620 Quadro K600 Quadro K420 Quadro 6000 Quadro 5000 Quadro 4000 Quadro 2000 Quadro 2000D Quadro 600 Quadro 410 (Notebooks): 9Release 375 is from the ‘Optimal Drivers for Enterprise’ [ODE] branch. ODE branches are dedicated to relatively long term stability for ISV certification, OEMs, and Enterprise customers. Release version R375 U5 includes: For Quadro Notebook: Before downloading this driver: Quadro GP100, Quadro P6000, Quadro P5000, Quadro P4000, Quadro P2000, Quadro P1000, Quadro P600, Quadro P400, Quadro M6000 24GB, Quadro M6000, Quadro M5000, Quadro M4000, Quadro M2000, Quadro K0, Quadro K5020 , Quadro K4000 Quadro K4200 Quadro K2200 Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000D Quadro K1200 Quadro K620 Quadro K600 Quadro K420 Quadro 6000 Quadro 50000003 Quadro Series (Notebooks): Quadro P5000 Quadro P4000 Quadro P3000 Quadro M2200 Quadro M1200 Quadro M620 Quadro M5500 Quadro M5000M Quadro M4000M Quadro M3000M Quadro K5100M, Quadro K5000M, Quadro K4100M, Quadro K4000M, Quadro K3100M, Quadro K2200M, Quadro K2100M, Quadro K3000M, Quadro K2000M, Quadro K1100M, Quadro K1000M, Quadro K620 QuaM, Quadro K610M, QuadroM0,510 Quadro 5000M, Quadro 4000M, Quadro 3000M, Quadro 2000M Quadro Blade/Embedded Series : Quadro M5000 SE, Quadro M3000 SE, Quadro K3100M, Quadro 500M, Quadro 1000M, Quadro 3000M, Quadro 4000M NVS 510, NVS 315, NVS 310 Quadro NVS Series (Notebooks) NVS 5400M, NVS 5200M, NVS 4200M Quadro Plex Series: Quadro Sync Series: Quadro Sync II, Quadro Sync, Quadro G-Sync II, Quadro G-Sync I 4 Video SourceThe NVIDIA graphics driver cannot be installed. Causes and solution How to install NVIDIA GEFORCE drivers correctly QUADRO K2200 graphics card Unable to proceed with NVIDIA installation — solution How to install drivers on Windows 10 | Video card nvidia quad K2000 NVIDIA graphics card driver not installed. solution 100{f93da0a36f3d82cb85c48a2456ab85c5442d1026dc9f4351d9fb2eeade79e93e} WORKING METHOD ON WINDOWS 10 2021 How to update driver on Nvidia Quadro. Workstation assembly 8 How to properly install drivers for NVIDIA 2022 video cards Download NVIDIA drivers from the official website and install Old video card in a new PC? We install the old drivers on Windows 10 share or save to yourself: |
Article «Testing of professional video cards NVIDIA and AMD in Popular Continents ) 2013 (July-August)
Testing NVIDIA and AMD professional graphics cards in popular professional applications
Introduction
Our laboratory is one of the few dedicated to testing not only gaming, but also professional accelerators. However, over the past few years, we have had to pay attention exclusively to professional solutions manufactured by NVIDIA, and AMD of a similar purpose remained in the shadows.
But the quality of our reviews practically did not suffer. The fact is that the professional graphics AMD is not particularly popular, the share of this company in the corresponding market segment has fluctuated around 15% over the past few years (and in Russia in general it is about 5%), that is, it is many times inferior to the share of NVIDIA. And this situation did not arise out of nowhere. The professional segment, which requires special treatment, turned out to be practically lost for AMD because the company did not pay enough attention to the dialogue with professional users, hoping that its video cards will sell themselves due to the excellent combination of cost and performance. But in the world of cards for high-performance graphics workstations, this approach is ineffective.
The main factors for professional graphics are high performance in CAD/CAM systems and excellent support. And with this, the affairs of the AMD were far from being the best. The company did not actively cooperate with the developers of professional software packages, which led to the lack of necessary optimizations in the drivers. As a result, on the one hand, the performance suffered, and on the other hand, there were problems with the certification of the company’s solutions.
Now the situation is gradually changing. AMD not only updated the corresponding line by moving it to the modern Southern Islands base, but also began to actively interact with developers of CAD / CAM systems, adding specific optimizations and functions to professional drivers.
However, this review owes its appearance not only to this. Over the past time, NVIDIA has significantly increased its portfolio of new generation professional accelerators based on the Kepler architecture. Unlike AMD , which has so far focused on performance cards, NVIDIA is now able to offer a wide variety of CAD and simulation hardware solutions.
As a result, we can present an extensive comparative testing of professional graphics cards, including AMD FirePro W8000 , AMD FirePro W7000 , NVIDIA Quadro K5000 , NVIDIA Quadro K4000 NVIDIA Quadro K4000 1714 and NVIDIA Quadro K600 . In other words, we will compare CAD/CAM cards from both manufacturers in the price range from $170 to $1800. This will help to correctly interpret the data obtained in practice.
How we tested
We tested professional graphics cards using a workstation based on the fastest Intel Core i7-39 six-core desktop processor to date70X Extreme Edition clocked at 3.5 GHz. In addition, the test platform used a motherboard based on the Intel X79 Express chipset and 16 GB of high-speed DDR3-1867 SDRAM.
Drivers:
Video cards were tested at 1920×1200 with Vsync turned off. In this case, tests specially developed by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPECviewperf 11.0) were used. The charts below show test scores. However, a larger value always indicates better performance.
Performance
Since its inception, the SPECviewperf synthetic benchmark has become the de facto industry standard for primary evaluation of graphics workstation performance. Simulating fairly primitive operations, this test shows the «pure geometric» performance of accelerators when working through OpenGL, which is determined by both hardware features and the quality of driver optimization. A feature of this test is the transfer to the graphics driver of pre-formed OpenGL sequences of commands that set the rotation of complex models that are typical for certain professional applications.
The scripts built into SPECviewperf of the eleventh version we use simulate the user’s activity in projection windows in the following professional applications (the names of the corresponding tests are given in brackets): (ensight-04), Maya (maya-03), Pro/ENGINEER (proe-05), SOLIDWORKS (sw-03), SiemensTeamcenterVisualizationMockup (tcvis-02), and SiemensNX (snx-01).
Synthetic tests put NVIDIA’s professional accelerators in higher positions than AMD FirePro series cards. In fact, judging by the results of SPECviewperf, the performance of the FirePro W8000 and W7000 is only at the level of the Quadro K2000 , which somewhat contradicts their positioning. Moreover, AMD cards belonging to different price categories and based on different chips demonstrate very close performance indicators in many scenarios. This is due to the peculiarities of the SPECviewperf test, which generates a rather primitive command stream that creates a load mainly on GPU raster operations units and practically does not involve shader processors. Modern versions of CAD / CAM packages are gradually moving away from such rendering mechanisms, and in reality, the shader domain of professional accelerators is starting to play an increasingly important role. By the way, this is what she herself says AMD , justifying the not-so-best performance of the new FirePro in SPECviewperf. In other words, this benchmark cannot be the ultimate truth and does not replace testing in applications.
Meanwhile, despite all its shortcomings, the SPECviewperf 11.0 test allows you to find out what effect the inclusion of full-screen anti-aliasing (FSAA) has on performance. The graphs below illustrate the change in the results of standard tests included in SPECviewperf when various FSAA modes are activated.
The difference in the behavior of professional accelerators from different manufacturers when full-screen anti-aliasing modes are activated is curious. NVIDIA cards behave quite naturally: their performance decreases as the complexity of anti-aliasing increases. But 3D accelerators of the FirePro series often demonstrate approximately the same performance at different levels of anti-aliasing. In addition, they do not support anti-aliasing modes, starting with sixteen times. All this suggests that driver 9The 1713 FirePro W-series shares a lot of code with the Catalyst game driver. Indeed, the behavior of the FirePro in SPECviewperf is more typical for gaming graphics cards than for professional ones.
In other words, NVIDIA is optimizing its own software for professional OpenGL as a whole, while AMD seems to focus on performance in separate packages, inheriting the implementation of many functions from the game driver engine. Both approaches have the right to life, but it should be borne in mind that in any highly specialized and individually developed programs that require high speed in OpenGL, with maps FirePro potentially has more problems than Quadro series products.
Power consumption
In terms of power consumption of professional video accelerators in the same price category, the Quadro series solutions seem to be significantly more economical. A system with Quadro K5000 consumes less than FirePro W8000 equivalent platform, and Quadro K4000 requires less than 9 W of power.1713 FirePro W7000 , 34W. The energy efficiency of the Quadro series is not hidden by NVIDIA itself, ranking it among the advantages of new solutions. Actually, nothing else was expected: the characteristics of the GPU used in the cards of the Quadro series are far from the maximum possible, and the boards themselves do without connecting a couple of additional power cables.
The boards of the FirePro series are quite similar in design to gaming accelerators. Therefore, it turns out that their level of heat dissipation and power consumption is not much different from the cards of the Radeon HD series. Thus, workstations using AMD solutions will be hotter and noisier than their counterparts that use family 9 professional graphics cards.1713 Quadro .
Conclusions
NVIDIA is a leader in the professional graphics accelerator market. And this is no coincidence. As we have seen from our own experience, this manufacturer can provide very high-quality adaptation of its own architectures to the needs of professional users working in three-dimensional engineering packages for design, modeling and design. Thanks to NVIDIA’s comprehensive approach to driver and hardware optimization, we once again have a balanced line of professional video cards of different prices, offering different levels of performance.
AMD cannot boast of such a solid strategy yet. Unfortunately, our laboratory did not wait for the mid-range model FirePro W5000 from this manufacturer, but what we saw on the example of FirePro W7000 and W8000 is somewhat discouraging. These two graphics cards, which cost almost twice as much, often show very close speeds in real professional applications. As a result, the FirePro W8000, which, based on the price, should compete with Quadro K5000 , according to its data, frankly, does not shine. But the FirePro W7000 often shows higher performance than the Quadro K4000 belonging to the same price category. And that makes the FirePro W7000 a fairly attractive mid-range professional card. However, if you are looking for higher performance in the upper price segment, the Quadro K5000 should be your choice. Of course, we cannot fail to note desire AMD to gain a foothold in the market of professional video accelerators. However, in order for the FirePro series to earn its rightful place in a wide range of professional workstations, more significant efforts are obviously needed. The overall optimization of the OpenGL driver for AMD professional graphics accelerators is still not very good, as evidenced by the results of synthetic tests. And besides, AMD does not yet pay due attention to the heat dissipation and power consumption of its products, and according to these parameters, accelerators 9The 1713 FirePro is significantly outperformed by the Quadro . Another advantage of the strategy chosen by NVIDIA is that the company also has low-cost professional cards built on the most modern Kepler architecture in its lineup, which fully support all the latest graphics technologies. While AMD’s in the lower price segment relies on the implementation of discounted video cards of past generations, NVIDIA brings to the market very attractive solutions like Quadro K2000 and Quadro K600 . Such inexpensive professional accelerators are able to attract attention, first of all, with a very favorable combination of price and performance.
Thus, the NVIDIA Quadro line of accelerators of 2013, which is based on the most modern Kepler architecture, remains a traditionally solid offer for the market of professional graphics stations. Accelerators of the FirePro W series, with which the company AMD plans to improve its market position, they have good prospects only in the middle price segment.
Ilya Gavrichenkov
E-mail: [email protected]
Abridged version of the review published on the website of the company
F-Center (www.fcenter.ru)
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 – review. Benchmarks and Specifications
The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card (GPU) is ranked 443 in our performance ranking. Manufacturer: NVIDIA. Runs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 with a minimum clock speed of 954 MHz. The graphics chip is equipped with an acceleration system and can operate in turbo mode or during overclocking. The RAM size is 2 GB GB with a clock speed of 4000 MHz and a bandwidth of 64 GB/s.
The power consumption of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 51 Watt and the process technology is only 28 nm. Below you will find key compatibility, sizing, technology, and gaming performance test results. You can also leave comments if you have any questions.
Let’s take a closer look at the most important features of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000. To have an idea of which video card is better, we recommend using the comparison service.
3.9
From 18
Hitesti Grade
Popular video cards
Most viewed
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
Intel UHD Graphics 630
Intel UHD Graphics 600
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
AMD Radeon RX Vega 10
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
Intel HD Graphics 530
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Intel HD Graphics 4600
Intel HD Graphics 520
Buy here:
AliExpress
General information
The base set of information will help you find out the release date of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card and its purpose (laptops or PCs), as well as the price at the time of release and the average current cost. This data also includes the architecture used by the manufacturer and the video processor code name.
Performance Rating Position: | 532 | |||
Value for money: | 12.99 | |||
Architecture: | Kepler | |||
Code name: | GK107 | |||
Type: | Workstation | |||
Release date: | March 1, 2013 (8 years ago) | |||
Starting price: | $599 | |||
Current price: | $1172 (2x MSRP) | |||
Value for money: | 0.23 | |||
GPU Code Name: | GK107 | |||
Market segment: | Workstation |
Specifications
This is important information that determines all the performance characteristics of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 graphics card. The smaller the technological process of manufacturing a chip, the better (in modern realities). The clock frequency of the core is responsible for its speed (direct correlation), while signal processing is carried out by transistors (the more transistors, the faster the calculations are performed, for example, in cryptocurrency mining).
Conveyors: | 384 | |||
Core Clock: | 954 MHz | |||
Number of transistors: | 1,270 million | |||
Process: | 28nm | |||
Power consumption (TDP): | 51 Watt | |||
Number of texels processed in 1 second: | 30.53 | |||
Floating point: | 732.7 gflops | |||
Pipelines / CUDA cores: | 384 | |||
Number of transistors: | 1,270 million | |||
Estimated heat output: | 51 Watt |
Dimensions, connectors and compatibility
There are many form factors of PC cases and laptop sizes today, so it is extremely important to know the length of the video card and its connection types (except for laptop versions). This will help make the upgrade process easier, as Not all cases can accommodate modern video cards.
Interface: | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |||
Length: | 202 mm | |||
Additional power: | None |
Memory (frequency and overclocking)
Internal memory is used to store data when performing calculations. Modern games and professional graphics applications place high demands on the amount and speed of memory. The higher this parameter, the more powerful and faster the video card. Memory type, size and bandwidth for NVIDIA Quadro K2000 + turbo overclocking option.
Memory type: | GDDR5 | |||
Maximum RAM amount: | 2GB | |||
Memory bus width: | 128 Bit | |||
Memory frequency: | 4000 MHz | |||
Memory bandwidth: | 64 GB/s |
Port and display support
As a rule, all modern video cards have several types of connections and additional ports, for example HDMI and DVI . Knowing these features is very important in order to avoid problems connecting a video card to a monitor or other peripherals.
Display connections: | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API Support
All NVIDIA Quadro K2000 supported APIs are listed below. This is a minor factor that does not greatly affect the overall performance.
DirectX: | 12 (11_0) | |||
OpenGL: | 4.6 | |||
Vulkan: | + |
Overall gaming performance
All tests are based on FPS. Let’s see how NVIDIA Quadro K2000 ranked in the gaming performance test (the calculation was made in accordance with the recommendations of the game developer for system requirements; it may differ from real situations).
Select games
Horizon Zero DawnDeath StrandingF1 2020Gears TacticsDoom EternalHunt ShowdownEscape from TarkovHearthstoneRed Dead Redemption 2Star Wars Jedi Fallen OrderNeed for Speed HeatCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2019GRID 2019Ghost Recon BreakpointFIFA 20Borderlands 3ControlF1 2019League of LegendsTotal War: Three KingdomsRage 2Anno 1800The Division 2Dirt Rally 2. 0AnthemMetro ExodusFar Cry New DawnApex LegendsJust Cause 4Darksiders IIIFarming Simulator 19Battlefield VFallout 76Hitman 2Call of Duty Black Ops 4Assassin´s Creed OdysseyForza Horizon 4FIFA 19Shadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeF1 2018Monster Hunter WorldThe Crew 2Far Cry 5World of Tanks enCoreX-Plane 11.11Kingdom Come: DeliveranceFinal Fantasy XV BenchmarkFortniteStar Wars Battlefront 2Need for Speed PaybackCall of Duty WWIIAssassin´s Creed OriginsWolfenstein II: The New ColossusDestiny 2ELEXThe Evil Survival 2Middle-earth:8 Shadow of WarFIFA EvolvedF1 2017Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (2017)Team Fortress 2Dirt 4Rocket LeaguePreyMass Effect AndromedaGhost Recon WildlandsFor HonorResident Evil 7Dishonored 2Call of Duty Infinite WarfareTitanfall 2Farming Simulator 17Civilization VIBattlefield 1Mafia 3Deus Ex Mankind Divid edMirror’s Edge CatalystOverwatchDoomAshes of the SingularityHitman 2016The DivisionFar Cry PrimalXCOM 2Rise of the Tomb RaiderRainbow Six SiegeAssassin’s Creed SyndicateStar Wars BattlefrontFallout 4Call of Duty: Black Ops 3Anno 2205World of WarshipsDota 2 RebornThe Witcher 3Dirt RallyGTA VDragon Age: InquisitionFar Cry 4Assassin’s Creed UnityCall of Duty: Advanced WarfareAlien: IsolationMiddle-earth: Shadow of MordorSims 4Wolfenstein: The New OrderThe Elder Scrolls OnlineThiefX-Plane 10. 25Battlefield 4Total War: Rome IICompany of Heroes 2Metro: Last LightBioShock InfiniteStarCraft II: Heart of the SwarmSimCityTomb RaiderCrysis 3Hitman: AbsolutionCall of Duty: Black Ops 2World of Tanks v8Border 2Counter-Strike: GODirt ShowdownDiablo IIIMass Effect 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimBattlefield 3Deus Ex Human RevolutionStarCraft 2Metro 2033Stalker: Call of PripyatGTA IV — Grand Theft AutoLeft 4 DeadTrackmania Nations ForeverCall of Duty 4 — Modern WarfareSupreme Commander — FA BenchCrysi s — GPU BenchmarkWorld in Conflict — BenchmarkHalf Life 2 — Lost Coast BenchmarkWorld of WarcraftDoom 3Quake 3 Arena — TimedemoHalo InfiniteFarming Simulator 22Battlefield 2042Forza Horizon 5Riders RepublicGuardians of the GalaxyBack 4 BloodDeathloopF1 2021Days GoneResident Evil VillageHitman 3Cyberpunk 2077Assassin´s Creed ValhallaDirt 5Watch Dogs LegionMafia Definitive EditionCyberpunk 2077 1.5 GRID LegendsDying Light 2Rainbow Six ExtractionGod of War
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
Horizon Zero Dawn (2020)
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
Death Stranding (2020)
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
F1 2020 (2020)
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
Gears Tactics (2020)
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
Doom Eternal (2020)
low
1280×720
med.
1920×1080
high
1920×1080
ultra
1920×1080
QHD
2560×1440
4K
3840×2160
Description | |
5 | Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates. |
May Stutter — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been studied enough. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to stutter and display low frame rates. | |
30 | Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphic settings, this game is expected to run at 25 fps or more |
40 | Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphics settings, this game is expected to run at 35fps or more |
60 | Fluent — According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphics settings, this game is expected to run at 58 fps or more |
May Run Fluently — The performance of this video card with this game has not yet been sufficiently studied. Based on interpolated information from graphics cards of a similar performance level, the game is likely to show smooth frame rates. | |
? | Uncertain — testing this video card in this game showed unexpected results. A slower card could deliver higher and more consistent frame rates while running the same reference scene. |
Uncertain — The performance of this video card in this game has not yet been studied enough. It is not possible to reliably interpolate data based on the performance of similar cards in the same category. | |
The value in the fields reflects the average frame rate across the entire database. To get individual results, hover over a value. |
AMD equivalent
AMD FirePro W4100
Compare
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 in benchmark results
Benchmarks help determine performance in standard NVIDIA Quadro K2000 benchmarks. We have compiled a list of the most famous benchmarks in the world so that you can get accurate results for each of them (see description). Pre-testing the graphics card is especially important when there are high loads, so that the user can see how the graphics processor copes with calculations and data processing.
Overall performance in benchmarks
NVIDIA Quadro M520
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M
AMD Radeon E8860
Passmark is an excellent benchmark that is updated regularly and shows relevant graphics card performance information.
NVIDIA Quadro M520
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M
AMD Radeon E8860
This test gives the best estimate of GPU performance. It provides highly accurate results.
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
3.