GRID K340 vs Quadro 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000 and GRID K340, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GRID K340 outperforms 2000 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 833 | 757 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 2.73 | 0.95 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $3,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 2000 has 200% better value for money than GRID K340.
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 | 625 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 30.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 178 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| 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 | 2.1 | 3.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.45 | 3.10 |
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro 2000 has 262.9% lower power consumption.
GRID K340, on the other hand, has a 26.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GRID K340 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
