AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a starkly one-sided comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, with a 328% delta over the AMD Radeon R7 250. That is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant, category-level gap that defines every use-case conclusion for these two cards.

The Quadro P2200 is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute acceleration. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,344 dwarfs the R7 250's 7,557. In practical terms, this means the Quadro P2200 is suited for tasks such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and professional content creation pipelines that leverage OpenCL kernels. The R7 250, by contrast, has no recorded wins in any benchmark category within the database. It does not win the OpenCL test, and no other head-to-head measurements are available to suggest an advantage in DirectX, Vulkan, or 2D workloads.

The R7 250's only statistical edge is its lower power draw, with a 55 W TDP versus the Quadro P2200's 75 W. However, the database does not record a performance-per-watt metric, and the sheer compute advantage of the Quadro makes that power difference irrelevant for any performance-sensitive task. The R7 250 also sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro P2200 sits at the 44th percentile. These percentile figures confirm that the Quadro is the higher-performing card in the overall distribution, even if both are mid-to-low tier in the broader GPU landscape.

For gaming, the picture is not directly measurable from the head-to-head data, but the aggregate benchmark scores hint at the divide. The Quadro P2200's average benchmark score is 8,686, while the R7 250's is 7,557. The Quadro also has recorded scores across a range of DirectX tests (PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12), while the R7 250 has none in the database. This suggests the Quadro has broader driver and API support in the recorded measurements, but the R7 250's lack of data means any gaming verdict is qualitative.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the Quadro packs 22.0 million transistors per mm², while the R7 250 manages 12.2 million per mm². That nearly 2x density advantage is a direct result of the process node gap.

Architecturally, the Quadro P2200 is based on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, part of the Quadro Pascal (Px200) generation. The R7 250 uses GCN 1.0, part of AMD's Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. These are separated by roughly six years of design philosophy. Pascal was built for compute efficiency and professional workloads, while GCN 1.0 was AMD's first-generation compute-oriented architecture, which was already aging by the time the R7 250 launched.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro. It has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro has more than double the shading units and TMUs, and 2.5x the ROPs. Pixel fill rate is 59.72 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R7 250. Texture fill rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.822 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro is roughly 4x faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Memory configurations also differ sharply. The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. That is a 7x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which matters for any memory-bound workload. The Quadro's memory clock is listed at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the R7 250's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Feature support also differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is a professional multi-display setup. The R7 250 has one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro also has no power connectors and is single-slot, as is the R7 250. Both list a 250 W suggested PSU, though the Quadro's TDP is 75 W and the R7 250's is 55 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557. The delta is 328% in favor of the Quadro. That means the Quadro is more than four times faster in this compute workload.

To put that number in context, look at the nearest rivals in the database. The Quadro P2200's average benchmark score of 8,686 places it within 1.5% of the Intel Arc A380 (8,558) and 1.1% of the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595). It is 0.7% behind both the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) and the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746). The R7 250's average score of 7,557 is within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550), 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), 1.1% behind the GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472), and 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447). These rival comparisons show that the Quadro P2200 sits in a slightly higher performance class than the R7 250, even when looking at average scores rather than the specific OpenCL test.

The Quadro P2200 also has a full suite of PassMark scores in the database: DirectX 9 at 167, DirectX 10 at 45, DirectX 11 at 70, DirectX 12 at 33, G2D at 881, G3D at 9,364, and GPU compute at 3,921. The R7 250 has no recorded PassMark scores at all. This absence of data is itself informative: the database only captured an OpenCL score for the R7 250, likely reflecting its weaker compute profile and the era in which it was relevant.

The Geekbench Vulkan score for the Quadro is 31,351, but there is no corresponding Vulkan score for the R7 250 in the database. Similarly, the Quadro's FP16 compute is listed at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R7 250 has no FP16 figure recorded. The Quadro's support for FP16 at a 1:64 ratio suggests it is not optimized for half-precision workloads, but the R7 250's lack of any FP16 data makes direct comparison impossible.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior card for any compute-oriented task, winning the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 328%. The AMD Radeon R7 250 has no recorded wins and is outclassed in every measurable category: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, FP32 compute, and API support.

For professional users, the Quadro P2200 is the obvious pick. Its 5 GB of GDDR5X memory and 200.2 GB/s bandwidth are designed for larger datasets and multi-display professional workloads. Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support modern high-resolution monitors, while the R7 250's single DVI, single HDMI 1.4a, and single DisplayPort 1.2 limit it to older, simpler display setups. The Quadro's DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support also future-proofs it better against modern software.

For budget-constrained or legacy system builders, the R7 250 might still serve a purpose, but not based on any performance advantage in the database. Its 55 W TDP is lower than the Quadro's 75 W, and it is shorter at 168 mm versus 201 mm. These are physical characteristics, not performance wins. If the goal is a low-power, compact card for basic display output, the R7 250 could work. But for any compute, rendering, or modern gaming workload, the Quadro P2200 is the only defensible choice from the recorded data.

The percentile figures reinforce this. The Quadro P2200 is in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 250 is in the 41st. Both are below the median, but the Quadro is clearly higher, and its average benchmark score of 8,686 versus 7,557 is a 15% gap. The Quadro's nearest rivals include midrange cards like the GeForce GTX 460 v2 and the RTX 3050 A Mobile, while the R7 250's nearest rivals are lower-tier parts like the Arc A310 and the HD 8850M.

The verdict is simple: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins this comparison decisively. The AMD Radeon R7 250 is a legacy part from 2013 that cannot compete with a 2019 professional card in any recorded benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is significantly faster, scoring 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a 328% delta.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 250 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the R7 250. The Quadro P2200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a 75 W TDP, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP. Both list a 250 W suggested PSU and require no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports more modern APIs?

A: The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro P2200 has an average benchmark score of 8,686, placing it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The R7 250 has an average score of 7,557, placing it at the 41st percentile.