GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs that occupy a nearly identical position in the performance hierarchy. The data shows the two cards are separated by a razor-thin 0.4% margin in average benchmark score, with the Radeon Pro 450 posting an average of 10804 against the Quadro K2200’s 10761. Both cards sit at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they land squarely in the middle of the pack. This is a matchup defined by trade-offs: the Radeon Pro 450 counters a significant OpenCL deficit with a modest Vulkan win, while the Quadro K2200 offers twice the memory and a more established desktop form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a higher average benchmark score of 10804, which is 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 10761.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 leads decisively in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11431, outperforming the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s 9002 by 21.2%.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 10518, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 10090 by 4.2%.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the clear winner in OpenCL-centric workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11431 is not just a small edge; it is a 21.2% advantage over the Radeon Pro 450’s 9002. This suggests that applications optimized for OpenCL compute tasks, common in scientific simulation, video encoding, and certain rendering pipelines, will see substantially better performance on the Quadro. The Quadro also doubles the memory capacity with 4 GB versus the Radeon’s 2 GB, which can be decisive for datasets or scenes that spill past the 2 GB boundary. Furthermore, the Quadro’s single-slot 202 mm design with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs makes it a straightforward drop-in for standard desktop workstations, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 relies on an MXM Module form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 takes the win in Vulkan performance, posting 10518 against the Quadro’s 10090, a 4.2% margin. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, particularly newer game engines or cross-platform compute frameworks, the Radeon Pro 450 holds a measurable advantage. The Radeon also achieves this with a dramatically lower power envelope of 35 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 68 W, making it the more efficient choice for thermally constrained or battery-powered systems. Its modern 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries also gives it a transistor density of 24.4M per mm², more than double the Quadro’s 12.6M per mm², which points to better architectural efficiency per unit of silicon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Baffin chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This is a relatively modern design that supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200, despite being listed in the Quadro Kepler generation, actually uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, produced on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon’s Baffin chip packs 3,000 million transistors into a compact 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The Quadro’s GM107 has fewer transistors at 1,870 million but spreads them across a larger 148 mm² die, giving it a lower density of 12.6M per mm². The Radeon’s GCN 4.0 architecture supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, whereas the Quadro’s Maxwell architecture does not report any FP16 capability. This architectural divergence explains the benchmark differences: the Radeon’s newer node and architecture favor modern APIs like Vulkan, while the Quadro’s higher raw clock speeds favor legacy OpenCL throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards share identical counts in several core areas: both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. However, the clock speeds diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). These clock differences drive the fillrate and compute gaps: the Quadro achieves a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s, while the Radeon Pro 450 manages only 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 throughput tells a similar story: the Quadro posts 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus the Radeon’s 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Memory capacity is the other major differentiator, 4 GB on the Quadro versus 2 GB on the Radeon, although bandwidth is nearly identical at 80.19 GB/s and 81.28 GB/s respectively, with both using a 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory. The power draw differs by nearly double: 35 W for the Radeon versus 68 W for the Quadro. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm by 111 mm with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon is an MXM Module with no physical dimensions listed. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro. Their release dates are roughly two years apart, with the Radeon launching on 2016-10-29 and the Quadro on 2014-07-21.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clean split, with each card taking one victory. The largest margin belongs to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the Quadro scores 11431 against the Radeon Pro 450’s 9002, a 21.2% advantage. This is a substantial gap that dwarfs the overall average benchmark difference of 0.4%. In practical terms, this means any OpenCL-heavy application will run over a fifth faster on the Quadro. The Radeon Pro 450 fights back in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 10518 versus the Quadro’s 10090, a 4.2% win. While the Vulkan margin is smaller than the OpenCL deficit, it is still a genuine victory that indicates the Radeon’s newer architecture handles modern API workloads more effectively. The average benchmark scores, 10804 for the Radeon and 10761 for the Quadro, are nearly identical, confirming that neither card has a global performance advantage. The nearest rival data reinforces this parity: the Radeon Pro 450’s closest competitor is the Quadro K2200 itself with a 0.4% delta, while the Quadro’s closest rival is the Radeon Pro 450 at -0.4%. Both cards are bracketed by the same set of competitors, the GeForce MX350, GTX 560 Ti, and Radeon RX 6600S, with deltas ranging from 0.7% to 1.7%, indicating a very tight performance cluster.

The Verdict

The data does not crown a single winner; it identifies two different tools for two different jobs. For users whose workflows depend on OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the clear choice. Its 21.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest performance gap in this comparison, and it pairs that with 4 GB of memory, double the Radeon’s 2 GB, which provides headroom for larger working sets. The Quadro also offers a conventional single-slot desktop form factor with standard display outputs, making it easier to integrate into existing workstation builds. Its higher TDP of 68 W is a reasonable trade-off for the substantial compute advantage.

For users targeting Vulkan-based applications or operating in power-constrained environments, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 is the better fit. It wins the Vulkan test by 4.2%, demonstrating that its GCN 4.0 architecture is more forward-looking despite being older in release terms. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the Quadro’s, making it ideal for compact or mobile systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. The MXM Module form factor indicates it is designed for laptops or specialized portable workstations, which aligns with its lower power draw. The Radeon also supports FP16 compute at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the Quadro, which could matter for workloads that leverage reduced-precision arithmetic. Given the near-identical average scores and the 1-1 split in head-to-head wins, the decision comes down to API preference and platform requirements: choose the Quadro for OpenCL and memory capacity, choose the Radeon for Vulkan and efficiency.