OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£90VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):51 W

NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro K2000
3.7/10

Overall score

Score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.3

Technical score

10%

7.7

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
5.6

Value for money

Value for money
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

70%

3.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 96%
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

6.9

Power & Cooling

11%

6.0

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 99%
7.7

User score

User score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

70%

8.5

User ratings

30%

5.7

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–¼Worse than 89%
  • nvidia-quadro-k2000
  • nvidia-quadro-k2000
  • nvidia-quadro-k2000
  • nvidia-quadro-k2000
nvidia-quadro-k2000
nvidia-quadro-k2000
nvidia-quadro-k2000
nvidia-quadro-k2000
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro K2000

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

6.9

Power & Cooling

11%

6.0

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity & Media

3.3
User score
User score
7.7/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

70%

8.5

User ratings

30%

5.7

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
7.7
Popularity
Popularity
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Popularity:
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a popularity score of 5.7 points, which is higher than that of 57.2% of products in this category.
5.7
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

70%

3.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

5.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.2% of graphics cards and equal to 16.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,016 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,016 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 96.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
693 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 693 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 98.5% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
0.73 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.73 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 98.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.8% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
GDDR version
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.9% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 69.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
64 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 64 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 97.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2
This graphics card supports PCIe 2, which is older than on 98.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 23.4% of graphics cards and equal to 76.6% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 95.1% of graphics cards and equal to 3.7% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 8.3% of graphics cards and equal to 88.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 79.1% of graphics cards and equal to 9.5% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.8% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
51 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 51 W, which is lower than that of 96.5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
51 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 51 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
51 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 51 W, which is lower than that of 97.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
51 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
202 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 202 mm long, which is shorter than 89.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
500 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 500 g, which is lighter than 91.2% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 76.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (51 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    51 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 83 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (202 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    202 mm vs 285 mm
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (51 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    51 W vs 225 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 5.89x cheaper
    NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£90 vs £530).
    £90 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 60% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (118 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    118 mm² vs 295 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 76.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (51 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    51 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (51 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    51 W vs 225 W
  • 76.8% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (51 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    51 W vs 220 W
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 83 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (202 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    202 mm vs 285 mm
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 51% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (500 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    500 g vs 1,021 g
  • 61.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 50.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 28.9% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.58 vs 7.2).
    5.58 vs 7.2
  • 4.4% lower user score
    User score
    7.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    ▼▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    NVIDIA Quadro K2000
    the average graphics card
    NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a lower user score than the average graphics card (7.66 vs 8.000).
    7.66 vs 8
  • 61.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 50.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (954 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    954 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • 92% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (30.5 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    30.5 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 95.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (7.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    7.63 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 96.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.7 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    0.73 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 86.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3016 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    3,016 points vs 22,653 points
  • 94.3% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (693 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    693 points vs 12,074 points
  • 97.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.7 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    0.73 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 96.8% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (0.7 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    0.73 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 93.8% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.03 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,968 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (384 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    384 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 85.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (64 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    64 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 78.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (4000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    4,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 42.9% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 100% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (0 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    0.016 vs 128
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2 vs 4).
    2.0 vs 4.0
  • 10 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    March 2013
    2,013 vs 2,023
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    1 vs 8
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • Worse SAM support
    This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5.0 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 94.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (1270 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    1,270 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1.0 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1).
    1.4a vs 2.1
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Narrower encode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.1 vs 2.3).
    1.1 vs 2.3
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/MPEG-2 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/MPEG-2 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 73% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 20 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 20 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 20 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 28 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    28 dB vs 0 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

D
develop3d.com
06/03/2013
Summary of the review
Review: Nvidia's CAD-focused Kepler Quadro professional GPUs: K600Go to product viewer dialogue for this item., K2000, and K4000Go to product viewer d...
G
gpu.userbenchmark.com
Q2 2014
Summary of the review
UserBenchmark: Nvidia GTX 550-Ti vs Quadro K2000
S
score.nero.com
28/04/2026
Summary of the review
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Benchmarks - Nero Score
D
develop3d.com
06/03/2013
Summary of the review
Review: Nvidia's CAD-focused Kepler Quadro professional GPUs (K600, K2000 and K4000Go to product viewer dialog for this item.) develop3dWould you like...
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about NVIDIA Quadro K2000

  • Energy efficient with a low power draw (TDP) of only 51W and requires no additional power connectors
  • Features a compact, single-slot design that fits easily into small form factor workstations
  • Quiet operation and effective cooling even under full load
  • Native support for up to three displays (2x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x DVI) with the ability to daisy-chain for more
  • Highly stable and reliable for professional software like CAD, SolidWorks, and Maya due to certified drivers
  • Effective 'workhorse' for video encoding tasks even as it has aged

What we don't like about NVIDIA Quadro K2000

  • Limited 2GB GDDR5 VRAM is insufficient for modern high-resolution textures or 4K video editing
  • Poor performance in modern AAA games, often struggling to reach 30 FPS even on lowest settings
  • Lacks modern outputs like HDMI, requiring adapters for many consumer displays
  • Significant hardware acceleration issues reported when attempting to run 4K display resolutions
  • Outperformed by much cheaper, modern entry-level consumer cards like the GTX 1050 or 1050 Ti in non-workstation tasks
  • Old architecture (Kepler) lacks support for modern features like Ray Tracing or DLSS

Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is a mid-range professional workstation graphics card based on the 28nm Kepler architecture and the GK107 GPU. It features 384 CUDA cores, 2GB of GDDR5 memory with a 64 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit interface, and a core clock speed of 954 MHz. Its primary strengths include its efficient single-slot design that draws only 51W of power without requiring auxiliary power connectors, support for up to four simultaneous displays via DisplayPort 1.2, and optimization for professional CAD and DCC applications. However, its main drawbacks are its age—leading to legacy driver status—and limited gaming performance compared to modern consumer-grade cards.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro K2000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found