Quadro K2000 vs GeForce GTX 860M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 860M SLI with Quadro K2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 860M SLI
2014
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
10.62
+201%

GTX 860M SLI outperforms K2000 by a whopping 201% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking418709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.43
Power efficiency7.025.49
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameno dataGK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date12 March 2014 (11 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 cores1280384
Core clock speed1029 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors2x 1870 Million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 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 amount2x 4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width2x 128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 11_0)12 (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:

Full HD46
+229%
14−16
−229%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data42.79

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+250%
18−20
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+250%
18−20
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Fortnite 65−70
+224%
21−24
−224%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
Valorant 100−110
+243%
30−33
−243%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+250%
18−20
−250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+202%
55−60
−202%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Dota 2 75−80
+229%
24−27
−229%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Fortnite 65−70
+224%
21−24
−224%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+214%
14−16
−214%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Valorant 100−110
+243%
30−33
−243%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Dota 2 75−80
+229%
24−27
−229%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Valorant 100−110
+243%
30−33
−243%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70
+224%
21−24
−224%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+222%
27−30
−222%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+238%
24−27
−238%
Valorant 120−130
+213%
40−45
−213%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Valorant 60−65
+244%
18−20
−244%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

This is how GTX 860M SLI and Quadro K2000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 860M SLI is 229% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.62 3.53
Recency 12 March 2014 1 March 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 51 Watt

GTX 860M SLI has a 200.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

Quadro K2000, on the other hand, has 135.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 860M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 860M 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 860M SLI
GeForce GTX 860M 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.


4 6 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 860M 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 860M SLI or Quadro K2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.