Quadro K2000 vs GeForce GTX 580M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 580M SLI with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 580M SLI
2011
100 Watt
8.67
+146%

GTX 580M SLI outperforms K2000 by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking463707
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.43
Power efficiency6.885.49
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameN12E-GTX2GK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 January 2011 (14 years ago)1 March 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores768384
Core clock speed620 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rateno data30.53
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data202 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-+
CUDA-3.0

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:

900p68
+152%
27−30
−152%
Full HD93
+166%
35−40
−166%
1200p81
+170%
30−35
−170%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data17.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+178%
18−20
−178%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+178%
18−20
−178%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Fortnite 55−60
+167%
21−24
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Valorant 90−95
+160%
35−40
−160%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+178%
18−20
−178%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+160%
55−60
−160%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Dota 2 65−70
+152%
27−30
−152%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Fortnite 55−60
+167%
21−24
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Valorant 90−95
+160%
35−40
−160%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Dota 2 65−70
+152%
27−30
−152%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Valorant 90−95
+160%
35−40
−160%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+167%
21−24
−167%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+167%
27−30
−167%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+156%
18−20
−156%
Valorant 100−110
+163%
40−45
−163%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Valorant 45−50
+172%
18−20
−172%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how GTX 580M SLI and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 580M SLI is 152% faster in 900p
  • GTX 580M SLI is 166% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 580M SLI is 170% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.67 3.53
Recency 6 January 2011 1 March 2013
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 51 Watt

GTX 580M SLI has a 145.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 96.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 580M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 580M SLI is a notebook card while Quadro K2000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M SLI
GeForce GTX 580M SLI
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 580M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 242 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 580M SLI or Quadro K2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.