Quadro K2000D vs Quadro FX 4600

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 and Quadro K2000D, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.11

K2000D outperforms FX 4600 by a whopping 270% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1075684
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.36
Power efficiency0.575.58
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameG80GK107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 4600 and K2000D have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores96384
Core clock speed500 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors681 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt51 Watt
Texture fill rate24.0030.53
Floating-point processing power0.2304 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs2432

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length229 mm202 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount768 MB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/s64 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
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.

FX 4600 1.11
K2000D 4.11
+270%

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.

FX 4600 430
K2000D 1586
+269%

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 1.11 4.11
Recency 5 March 2007 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 51 Watt

K2000D has a 270.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 162.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000D is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.


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 Quadro FX 4600
Quadro FX 4600
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.


3.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 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.