GMA X4500 vs Quadro K2000

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking685not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.36no data
Power efficiency5.55no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 5.0 (2008)
GPU code nameGK107Eaglelake
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)1 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

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 cores38480
Core clock speed954 MHz533 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate30.532.132
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs324

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 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length202 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno data

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10.0
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2013 1 June 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 13 Watt

Quadro K2000 has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X4500, on the other hand, has 292.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K2000 and GMA X4500. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation graphics card while GMA X4500 is a desktop 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 Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000
Intel GMA X4500
GMA X4500

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.


3.6 212 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 328 votes

Rate GMA X4500 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.