- Home
- Processors
- Videocards
- Home
- / Videocards
- / Compare videocards
- / NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
NVIDIA Quadro K2000 
vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700 Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 91% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 500 MHz
- Around 9% higher texture fill rate: 30.53 GTexel / s vs 28 GTexel / s
- 3.4x more pipelines: 384 vs 112
- 2.6x better floating-point performance: 732.7 gflops vs 280 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 53% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 78 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1578 vs 372
- 4.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 385 vs 81
| Specifications (specs) |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 vs 8 January 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 500 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s vs 28 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 112 |
| Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops vs 280 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt vs 78 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 vs 372 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 vs 81 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
- Around 66% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3285 vs 1974
- Around 66% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3285 vs 1974
| Benchmarks |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3285 vs 1974 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3285 vs 1974 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000 GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
| PassMark - G3D Mark | | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | | |
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1578 | 372 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 81 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4071 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.332 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 265.424 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.093 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 38.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1974 | 3285 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1631 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1974 | 3285 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700 |
Essentials |
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
| Code name | GK107 | G92 |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 8 January 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $1,599 |
| Place in performance rating | 1206 | 1330 |
| Price now | $164.99 | $99.02 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 11.74 | 8.26 |
Technical info |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 732.7 gflops | 280 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 GTexel / s | 28 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 51 Watt | 78 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | 267 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Vulkan |
Memory |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Navigation
Differences Compare benchmarks Compare specifications (specs)
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K2000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs 
ATIRadeon HD 5750 NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs 
AMDRadeon HD 6490M NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 625M NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs 
IntelIris Graphics 5100 NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs AMDRadeon HD 8670D NVIDIAQuadro K2000 vs NVIDIAGeForce 830M About
AskGeek.io - Compare processors and videocards to choose the best.
Sections
Links
Language
English
Deutsch
Française
Español
Português
Русский © 2026, AskGeek.io