Quadro K2000M vs GeForce GTX 260

Place in the ranking	751	817
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.16	0.38
Power efficiency	1.19	3.27
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GT200	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000M has 138% better value for money than GTX 260.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	192	384
Core clock speed	576 MHz	745 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	55 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	36.86	23.84
Floating-point processing power	0.4769 TFLOPS	0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	64	32

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	448 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	111.9 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Dual Link DVIHDTV	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 260 3.15
+20.2%

K2000M 2.62

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 260 1215
+20.3%

K2000M 1010

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

27−30
+17.4%

−17.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

16.63

11.53

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how GTX 260 and K2000M compete in popular games:

GTX 260 is 17% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.15	2.62
Recency	16 June 2008	1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	896 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	182 Watt	55 Watt

GTX 260 has a 20.2% higher aggregate performance score.

K2000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 230.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.