Quadro K2000D vs GeForce GTX 775M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 775M with Quadro K2000D, including specs and performance data.

GTX 775M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
9.43
+129%

GTX 775M outperforms K2000D by a whopping 129% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking470691
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.42
Power efficiency6.465.54
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameN13E-GTX-A2GK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date24 September 2013 (11 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores1344384
Core clock speed719 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors3540 Million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 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
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed3600 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 data2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort

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.

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

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 775M 9.43
+129%
K2000D 4.12

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 775M 3634
+129%
K2000D 1586

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 775M 11889
+199%
K2000D 3973

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 775M 36
+200%
K2000D 12

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+133%
27−30
−133%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+154%
24−27
−154%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+133%
27−30
−133%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+154%
24−27
−154%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+133%
27−30
−133%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+154%
24−27
−154%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Hitman 3 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+150%
24−27
−150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.43 4.12
Recency 24 September 2013 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 51 Watt

GTX 775M has a 128.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K2000D, on the other hand, has 96.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 775M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000D in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 775M is a notebook card while Quadro K2000D is a workstation one.


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

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 775M
GeForce GTX 775M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000D
Quadro K2000D

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.8 37 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 775M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.