Radeon R7 (Carrizo) vs Quadro K2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID K1 NVS 510 Quadro 410 Quadro K420 Quadro K600 Quadro K2000
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) Radeon R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Kaveri) Radeon R7 A360 Radeon R7 M260 Radeon R7 M260DX Radeon R7 M260X Radeon R7 M265 Radeon R7 M265DX Radeon R7 M270 Radeon R7 M340 Radeon R7 M350 Radeon R7 M350 2GB Radeon R7 M360 Radeon R7 M365X Radeon R7 M370 Radeon R7 M440 Radeon R7 M445 Radeon R7 M460 Radeon R7 M465 Radeon R7 M465X Radeon R7 Mobile Graphics

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with Radeon R7 (Carrizo), including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.11
+103%

K2000 outperforms R7 (Carrizo) by a whopping 103% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000
R7 (Carrizo) R7 (Carrizo)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking694892
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.43no data
Power efficiency5.553.97
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGK107Carrizo
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)4 June 2015 (9 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 cores384512
Core clock speed954 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate30.53no data
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
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 DisplayPortno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.0-

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 HD18−21
+80%
10
−80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p33.28no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
World of Tanks 24
+0%
24
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro K2000 and R7 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2000 is 80% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.11 2.02
Recency 1 March 2013 4 June 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 12 Watt

Quadro K2000 has a 103.5% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 (Carrizo), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 325% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Carrizo) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation card while Radeon R7 (Carrizo) 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
AMD Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000
vs
K2000D Quadro K2000D
R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
vs
GeForce 825M GeForce 825M
Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000
vs
FirePro W4100 FirePro W4100
GRID K520 GRID K520
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
K5000M Quadro K5000M
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
RTX A2000 Embedded RTX A2000 Embedded
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
Apple M2 Max 30-Core GPU M2 Max 30-Core GPU
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
RTX 3060 GeForce RTX 3060
Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000
vs
R7 M350 2GB Radeon R7 M350 2GB
Tesla K20m Tesla K20m
vs
Quadro P620 Quadro P620
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
8800 GTS 512 GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
RX 6800 XT Radeon RX 6800 XT
Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000
vs
RX 6600 XT Radeon RX 6600 XT

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 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) 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.