GPU Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and AMD FirePro W5170M at nearly the same overall performance level, with average benchmark scores of 8686 and 8595 respectively. That 1.1% gap in favor of the Quadro P2200 is statistically negligible in aggregate, but the individual benchmark results tell a far more lopsided story. In the two compute-oriented tests available for both cards, the Quadro P2200 completely dominates, posting margins of 297.3% and 246.4%. The FirePro W5170M does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in this dataset. The picture is clear: the Quadro P2200 is the decisive performer in compute workloads, while the FirePro W5170M’s only claim is being a closer rival than most, sitting within 1.6% of the Intel Arc A380 and NVIDIA GeForce MX330.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins everywhere the data measures both cards. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32344 against the W5170M’s 8140, a 297.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P2200 scores 31351 versus 9050, a 246.4% lead. There is no benchmark category in the head-to-head set where the FirePro W5170M comes out ahead. The W5170M’s case for existence rests entirely on its own standalone scores, not on beating the P2200. Its Geekbench Vulkan result of 9050 is its strongest showing, but that is still less than a third of the P2200’s Vulkan score. The P2200 also carries a wider benchmark portfolio, with Passmark scores across DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, whereas the W5170M only has the two Geekbench entries. The FirePro’s niche is portability as an MXM module, not performance supremacy. For raw compute throughput, the P2200 is the only winner in this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing eras. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2M per mm². The P2200’s newer process node allows roughly triple the transistor count in just 1.6 times the die area. The P2200 is built on the Pascal architecture, while the W5170M uses GCN 1.0. The P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, exactly half the shading units and TMUs, and less than half the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the P2200: it runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1493 MHz boost, while the W5170M sits at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The P2200’s memory subsystem is substantially larger: 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus delivering 200.2 GB/s, versus 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 72.00 GB/s. The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4; the W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, but the P2200 released in 2019, while the W5170M dates to 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the largest single margin between these two cards. The P2200 scores 32344, which is 297.3% higher than the W5170M’s 8140. That is nearly four times the performance. The Geekbench Vulkan test is similarly one-sided, with the P2200 at 31351 and the W5170M at 9050, a 246.4% difference. These margins dwarf the aggregate average score gap of 1.1%, which only exists because the W5170M has no Passmark results to balance out the compute-heavy Geekbench scores. The P2200’s own Passmark G3D score is 9364, and its GPU compute score is 3921, while the W5170M has no comparable data points. In the nearestRivals listing, the P2200 sits 1.1% above the W5170M in average score, but the W5170M is itself only 0.4% above the Intel Arc A380 and 1.6% above the AMD Radeon HD 8870M. The P2200’s deltaPct of -0.7% against the GeForce GTX 460 v2 and RTX 3050 A Mobile shows it is bracketed by those cards, but none of those rivals appear in the head-to-head comparison. The only two head-to-head tests are the Geekbench pair, and the P2200 wins both by margins that are not close.

The Verdict

The data directs the choice to the Quadro P2200 for anyone prioritizing compute performance. It wins both available head-to-head benchmarks by 297.3% and 246.4%, which is not a narrow edge but a categorical one. The P2200 also offers more memory, a wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, more shading units, and a newer architecture. The FirePro W5170M is a mobile MXM module with no standalone performance wins in this dataset. Its only virtue is its form factor, it is portable-device dependent for display outputs and uses the MXM-A interface, whereas the P2200 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For a desktop workstation with PCIe slots, the P2200 is the clear pick. For a laptop or proprietary mobile chassis that requires an MXM module, the W5170M is the only one of the two that physically fits. There is no benchmark evidence that the W5170M outperforms the P2200 in any workload measured here. The percentile ranking for both is identical at 44, but that aggregate measure obscures the fact that the P2200’s average score is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX 9, 10, and 12 scores (167, 45, and 33), while its G3D score of 9364 is strong. The W5170M’s average of 8595 comes from just two Geekbench results. If the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the P2200 is the only rational choice from this pairing.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 has an average benchmark score of 8686, which is 1.1% higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8595.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P2200 scores 32344 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8140 for the FirePro W5170M, a 297.3% advantage for the P2200.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M win any benchmark against the Quadro P2200?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the P2200 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The W5170M has zero wins out of two tests.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 1280 shading units, exactly double the FirePro W5170M’s 640 shading units.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the Quadro P2200 and the FirePro W5170M have a production status of “End-of-life.”

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | AMD FirePro W5170M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 40 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 37.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | 1,184.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 75 W | null |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2019-06-09 | 2014-08-24 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Radeon Pro Mobile |