NVS 310 vs Quadro K2000D

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000D and NVS 310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K2000D
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.12
+534%

K2000D outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 534% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6911190
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.420.03
Power efficiency5.542.23
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK107GF119
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000D has 1300% better value for money than NVS 310.

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 cores38448
Core clock speed954 MHz523 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate30.534.184
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 2.0 x16
Length202 mm156 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz875 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s14 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 mini-DisplayPort2x DisplayPort

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
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.02.1

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.

K2000D 4.12
+534%
NVS 310 0.65

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.

K2000D 1586
+532%
NVS 310 251

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.

K2000D 3973
+351%
NVS 310 881

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 4.12 0.65
Recency 1 March 2013 26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 20 Watt

K2000D has a 533.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 155% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000D is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 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 K2000D
Quadro K2000D
NVIDIA NVS 310
NVS 310

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 14 votes

Rate Quadro K2000D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 83 votes

Rate NVS 310 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.