GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro K2200 and AMD’s FirePro W5000 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they represent divergent design philosophies from their respective generations. The K2200, released in July 2014, is a Maxwell-based part with a focus on efficiency and modern feature support, while the W5000, launched two years earlier in August 2012, is a GCN 1.0 architecture card with a wider memory bus and higher raw pixel throughput. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows the K2200 leading in the only shared test, but the W5000 counters with physical advantages in memory bandwidth and rasterization rates. The choice between them hinges on whether software workloads favor the K2200’s compute and API compatibility or the W5000’s memory and fill-rate strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload type. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11,431 versus the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a 16.6% advantage. This makes the K2200 the pick for GPU-compute tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as rendering, simulation, or video processing. Its Vulkan score of 10,090 further indicates strong modern-API performance, though no comparable Vulkan result exists for the W5000, so that metric stands alone. The K2200 also carries a higher average benchmark score of 10,761 against the W5000’s 9,803, reinforcing its overall computational edge.

The AMD FirePro W5000, however, wins in memory and pixel-processing categories. Its memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is 27.7% higher than the K2200’s 80.19 GB/s, and its pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s exceeds the K2200’s 17.98 GPixel/s by 46.8%. These figures favor workloads that are bandwidth-bound or require heavy fragment shading, such as high-resolution texture mapping, multi-sample anti-aliasing, or large framebuffer operations. The W5000’s texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s is lower than the K2200’s 44.96 GTexel/s, so it does not dominate texture-heavy tasks, but its 32 ROPs (double the K2200’s 16) give it a clear edge in final pixel output. For 2D CAD viewport redraws or display-intensive applications, the W5000’s rasterization throughput is the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use a 28 nm TSMC process, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The K2200 packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The W5000 is larger and denser: 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, or 13.2 million per mm². AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture uses a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to NVIDIA’s 128-bit bus on the K2200, which is why the W5000 achieves 102.4 GB/s bandwidth despite its lower effective memory clock of 3.2 Gbps versus the K2200’s 5 Gbps. The K2200 compensates with faster clock speeds, a base of 1046 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz, whereas the W5000’s core clocks are not listed in the data.

Compute resources also differ. The W5000 has more shading units (768 vs. 640) and more TMUs (48 vs. 40), but the K2200 achieves higher FP32 throughput at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS, a 13.5% advantage, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The K2200 also supports a newer DirectX version (12 with 11_0 feature level) compared to the W5000’s DirectX 12 (11_1), and it lists Vulkan 1.4 support versus the W5000’s Vulkan 1.2.170. Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6 and identical display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2). Memory capacity favors the K2200 at 4 GB versus the W5000’s 2 GB, though the W5000’s bus width gives it the bandwidth lead. Power draws are close: 68 W for the K2200 and 75 W for the W5000, both single-slot with no external power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the W5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single shared benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the K2200 wins decisively. Its score of 11,431 beats the W5000’s 9,803 by 1,628 points, a 16.6% margin. This is not a marginal victory; it places the K2200 comfortably ahead in raw compute throughput. The K2200’s FP32 output of 1,438.7 GFLOPS explains this gap, as it outpaces the W5000’s 1,267.2 GFLOPS by 171.5 GFLOPS. In practical terms, OpenCL workloads such as video encoding, physics simulations, or GPU-accelerated filters will complete faster on the K2200.

Beyond the direct comparison, the K2200’s Vulkan score of 10,090 is worth noting, though no W5000 equivalent exists. This result suggests the K2200 handles Vulkan APIs proficiently, which matters for modern CAD or DCC applications that have moved to Vulkan for viewport rendering. The W5000’s counter-argument comes from memory and pixel rates. Its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is 22.21 GB/s higher than the K2200’s 80.19 GB/s, and its 26.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is 8.42 GPixel/s higher. In a head-to-head for fill-rate-bound scenarios, e.g., anti-aliased wireframes, deep color buffers, or multi-monitor 4K output, the W5000 should pull ahead, even though no direct benchmark captures this in the data.

Relative to their nearest rivals, both cards hold their own. The K2200’s average score of 10,761 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) and 0.7% of the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690), while trailing the GeForce MX350 (10,883) by 1.1%. The W5000’s average of 9,803 is nearly identical to the Quadro M2000M (9,832) and Quadro 6000 (9,846), and it edges the GTX 1070 (9,780) by 0.2%. This places the K2200 at the 49th percentile of all GPUs and the W5000 at the 47th, both firmly mid-pack, but the K2200 has a slight overall standing advantage.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 if your workload is compute-centric. It wins the only shared benchmark by 16.6%, offers 13.5% higher FP32 throughput, and has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and newer DirectX version also make it the more future-proof choice for software that leverages modern APIs. The K2200’s average benchmark score of 10,761 is 958 points higher than the W5000’s, and its 49th percentile ranking beats the W5000’s 47th. For OpenCL acceleration, rendering, or any task that scales with shading units and clock speed, the K2200 is the data-backed winner.

Pick the AMD FirePro W5000 if your bottleneck is memory bandwidth or pixel fill rate. Its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and 26.40 GPixel/s pixel rate are definitive advantages over the K2200, and its 32 ROPs double the K2200’s 16. This makes the W5000 better suited for high-resolution 2D display workloads, heavy anti-aliasing, or applications that stream large textures. It also consumes only 7 W more power (75 W vs. 68 W) and uses PCIe 3.0, which offers double the bus bandwidth of the K2200’s PCIe 2.0, useful for transferring large datasets to the GPU. The W5000’s launch MSRP was 599 USD, a figure the data does not provide for the K2200. If your software is fill-rate-bound or you need maximum memory bandwidth per dollar of performance, the W5000’s physical specs justify its selection despite losing the compute benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431, which is 16.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5000 have any advantages over the K2200?

A: Yes. The W5000 has higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s), higher pixel rate (26.40 GPixel/s vs. 17.98 GPixel/s), and more ROPs (32 vs. 16).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro W5000 has 2 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the W5000’s bus is 256-bit versus the K2200’s 128-bit.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS, which is 13.5% more than the W5000’s 1,267.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both offer OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are both cards single-slot designs?

A: Yes, both are single-slot, have no power connectors, and require a suggested 250 W power supply. Their TDPs are 68 W for the K2200 and 75 W for the W5000.