HD Graphics 6000 vs Quadro K2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with HD Graphics 6000, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.10
+86.4%

K2000 outperforms HD Graphics 6000 by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking688854
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.36no data
Power efficiency5.6010.22
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameGK107Broadwell GT3
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)5 September 2014 (10 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 cores384384
Core clock speed954 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data950 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5345.60
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.7296 TFLOPS
ROPs166
TMUs3248

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 x16Ring Bus
Length202 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan++
CUDA3.0-

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.

Quadro K2000 4.10
+86.4%
HD Graphics 6000 2.20

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.

Quadro K2000 1580
+86.1%
HD Graphics 6000 849

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 HD27−30
+80%
15
−80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p22.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro K2000 and HD Graphics 6000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2000 is 80% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.10 2.20
Recency 1 March 2013 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro K2000 has a 86.4% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 6000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 240% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 6000 is a notebook 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 HD Graphics 6000
HD Graphics 6000

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
3.2 256 votes

Rate HD Graphics 6000 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.