Quadro 2000 vs Quadro K6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K6000 and Quadro 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K6000
2013
12 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
20.91
+750%

K6000 outperforms 2000 by a whopping 750% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking263837
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.240.15
Power efficiency6.372.72
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK110BGF106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)24 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,265 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K6000 has 727% better value for money than Quadro 2000.

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 cores2880192
Core clock speed797 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,080 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt62 Watt
Texture fill rate216.520.00
Floating-point processing power5.196 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs24032

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 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm178 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 amount12 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.4 GB/s41.6 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, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.52.1

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.

Quadro K6000 20.91
+750%
Quadro 2000 2.46

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 K6000 8059
+752%
Quadro 2000 946

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 K6000 24053
+519%
Quadro 2000 3884

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 K6000 87
+625%
Quadro 2000 12

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 20.91 2.46
Recency 23 July 2013 24 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 62 Watt

Quadro K6000 has a 750% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000, on the other hand, has 262.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 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 K6000
Quadro K6000
NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000

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.


3.9 108 votes

Rate Quadro K6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 313 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 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.