Quadro K3000M vs Quadro K2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.11

K3000M outperforms K2000 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking692680
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.411.72
Power efficiency5.523.89
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK107GK104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3000M has 320% better value for money than Quadro K2000.

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 cores384576
Core clock speed954 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5331.39
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s89.6 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
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 4.11
K3000M 4.26
+3.6%

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 1582
K3000M 1643
+3.9%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K2000 3952
K3000M 4199
+6.3%

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K2000 12
K3000M 14
+16.7%

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:

900p30−35
−10%
33
+10%
Full HD30−35
−10%
33
+10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p19.974.70

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how Quadro K2000 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 10% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 10% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.11 4.26
Recency 1 March 2013 1 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro K2000 has an age advantage of 9 months, and 47.1% lower power consumption.

K3000M, on the other hand, has a 3.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K2000 and Quadro K3000M.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation 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
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

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.


3.6 215 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M 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.