GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the substantially faster card in every measured head-to-head test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 versus the Radeon Pro 450's 9,002, a 72.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P2200 posts 31,351 against 10,518, a 66.5% lead. If your workload uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the choice is the Quadro P2200 without hesitation.

The Radeon Pro 450 does have one statistical edge: its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 10,804, while the Quadro P2200 averages 8,686. That average, however, is skewed by the Quadro's Passmark legacy DirectX tests, where it scores very low (45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 12, 167 in DirectX 9). Those older API tests drag down the Quadro's average despite its modern API dominance. The Radeon Pro 450 also sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, five points higher than the Quadro's 44th percentile. But percentile rank reflects the full test suite, not just the modern workloads that matter for current software.

For a user choosing between these two today, the Quadro P2200 is the pick for OpenCL and Vulkan compute, for larger frame buffers, and for any task that benefits from 5 GB of GDDR5X memory. The Radeon Pro 450 is only preferable in scenarios where its 35 W power draw and MXM module form factor are mandatory, such as a specific laptop or all-in-one system that requires that exact card. The Quadro P2200 needs 75 W, a single-slot bracket, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, so it is a desktop card through and through.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro 450 uses AMD's Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The Quadro P2200 uses NVIDIA's GP106 chip on the older Pascal architecture, built on TSMC's 16 nm process. It holds 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for 22.0 million per mm². The Quadro has 46.7% more transistors on a 62.6% larger die, but the Radeon's newer node gives it a higher transistor density.

The Radeon Pro 450 features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro P2200 doubles those counts in most respects: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That hardware advantage explains much of the performance gap. The Radeon offers FP32 compute of 1,024.0 GFLOPS and matches that with FP16 at 1,024.0 GFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS FP32, roughly 3.7 times the Radeon's raw shader throughput, but its FP16 is only 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, meaning it is heavily optimized for FP32 and not for half-precision work.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s, which is 2.46 times the bandwidth. The Quadro also runs its memory at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective transfer, while the Radeon's memory is clocked at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. The Quadro's pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s.

API support also differs. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the Quadro are relevant for modern applications. The Quadro also supports four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its MXM mobile design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark tests show a decisive Quadro P2200 sweep. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 32,344 against the Radeon's 9,002, a delta of 72.2% in the Quadro's favor. This is the largest measured gap between the two cards. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 31,351 versus 10,518, a 66.5% advantage. Both tests are compute-oriented, and both show the Pascal card's shader and memory advantages translating directly into real workload performance.

The Radeon Pro 450's individual benchmark scores are 12,893 in Geekbench Metal, 9,002 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 10,518 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its Metal score is actually its strongest result, and it is a test the Quadro was not recorded in, since Metal is Apple's API and the Quadro is a PC card. The Radeon's OpenCL and Vulkan scores are much lower than its Metal score, suggesting the card performs best in Apple-centric environments.

The Quadro P2200's benchmark profile is broader. Its Passmark results include 9,364 in G3D, 3,921 in GPU Compute, and 881 in G2D. Its legacy DirectX scores are notably low: 45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 12, and 167 in DirectX 9. These low legacy scores are why its average benchmark score of 8,686 falls below the Radeon's 10,804, despite winning the modern compute tests by huge margins. The DirectX 12 score of 33 is particularly striking given the card's DirectX 12 (12_1) feature support, but the database records what it records.

The Radeon's nearest rivals by average score include the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10,761 (0.4% ahead), the GeForce MX350 at 10,883 (0.7% behind), the GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 10,690 (1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10,629 (1.7% ahead). The Quadro P2200's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743 (0.7% behind), the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (0.7% behind), the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8,595 (1.1% ahead), and the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558 (1.5% ahead). These rival clusters show that the Radeon Pro 450 competes in the same average-score bracket as older midrange GeForce cards, while the Quadro P2200 sits among a different group of GPUs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon Pro 450 is built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the Quadro P2200 uses TSMC's 16 nm process. Transistor counts are 3,000 million versus 4,400 million, and die sizes are 123 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density favors the Radeon at 24.4M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm².

The Radeon Pro 450 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the Quadro P2200 has a 1000 MHz base clock and a 1493 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks differ: the Radeon runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, the Quadro at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is 2 GB GDDR5 versus 5 GB GDDR5X. Bus width is 128-bit versus 160-bit. Bandwidth is 81.28 GB/s versus 200.2 GB/s.

Shader resources: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Radeon; 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs for the Quadro. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s versus 59.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 32.00 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS versus 3.822 TFLOPS. FP16 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64).

The Radeon Pro 450 has a 35 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width, with no power connectors listed and no suggested PSU. The Quadro P2200 has a 75 W TDP, is a single-slot card, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Radeon uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: the Radeon is portable device dependent, the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro has recorded dimensions of 201 mm (7.9 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the Radeon has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are October 2016 for the Radeon and June 2019 for the Quadro. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta, while the Radeon has no recorded predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is dramatically faster. It scores 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Radeon Pro 450's 9,002, a 72.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 win any benchmark over the Quadro P2200?

A: In the recorded head-to-head tests, the Radeon Pro 450 wins zero tests. The Quadro P2200 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon does have a higher average benchmark score overall (10,804 versus 8,686), but that is due to the Quadro's low legacy DirectX scores, not a head-to-head victory.

Q: Why does the Quadro P2200 have a lower average benchmark score if it wins the modern tests?

A: The Quadro P2200's average of 8,686 is pulled down by its Passmark legacy DirectX scores: 45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 12, and 167 in DirectX 9. The Radeon Pro 450 has no such low legacy scores in its recorded data, so its average of 10,804 stays higher.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro offers 2.5 times the capacity and 2.46 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has a 35 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width. The Quadro P2200 has a 75 W TDP, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which API versions does each card support?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro has the higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins in every measured compute scenario. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan both favor it by margins of 72.2% and 66.5% respectively. It is the card for OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, and any workload that can use its 5 GB GDDR5X frame buffer and 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is roughly 3.7 times the Radeon's 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Its higher pixel rate of 59.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 119.4 GTexel/s make it the stronger choice for rasterization-heavy tasks. The Quadro also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, so it is better positioned for modern API features. It is a desktop card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

The Radeon Pro 450 wins in the areas where its form factor and power envelope are the deciding factors. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the Quadro's 75 W, and its MXM Module slot width means it fits in portable systems where a single-slot desktop card cannot. It uses PCIe 3.0 x8 rather than x16, matching the narrower bandwidth allocation common in mobile platforms. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it adapts to the host system's panel outputs rather than providing its own display ports. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio also means it handles half-precision compute at the same throughput as its FP32 rate, unlike the Quadro's 1:64 ratio on the Pascal card. For a system builder with a laptop that requires an MXM module, the Radeon Pro 450 is the only compatible choice. For a desktop builder with a PCIe x16 slot, the Quadro P2200 offers massively superior performance in the tests that matter most.