AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with a 2-0 win record against the AMD Radeon Vega 8. The most substantial margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 against the Vega 8's 8,822, a 29.6% advantage. This is a decisive gap in raw compute throughput, indicating the discrete NVIDIA card maintains a clear edge in general-purpose GPU workloads that leverage OpenCL.

In the Vulkan API test, the Quadro K2200 again takes the lead, scoring 10,090 versus the Vega 8's 8,134, a 24% delta. While slightly narrower than the OpenCL gap, this still represents a significant performance differential in modern graphics and compute APIs. The data suggests the NVIDIA architecture extracts higher efficiency from Vulkan workloads, possibly due to driver maturity or hardware scheduling differences, though the recorded figures alone do not specify the cause.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. The Quadro K2200 posts an average of 10,761 across its recorded tests, while the Vega 8 averages 9,221. This places the Quadro K2200 at the 49th percentile among all GPUs in the database, compared to the Vega 8's 45th percentile. The four-percentile gap reflects a consistent, if not overwhelming, performance tier separation.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the Quadro K2200's average score of 10,761 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, where the Quadro is ahead by that margin) and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883). The Vega 8's average of 9,221 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210, with the Vega 8 ahead by 0.1%), and within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (9,302). These rival comparisons show that the Quadro K2200 competes in a higher performance neighborhood than the Vega 8, which aligns with its larger benchmark deltas in the head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 uses the Raven chip based on GCN 5.0, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, with 4,940 million transistors spread across a 210 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ accordingly. The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA GPU carries 25% more shading units, 25% more TMUs, and double the ROP count. The pixel rate tells the story: the Quadro K2200 delivers 17.98 GPixel/s against the Vega 8's 8.8 GPixel/s, a 104% advantage in raw pixel throughput. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA, with 44.96 GTexel/s versus 35.2 GTexel/s, a 28% lead.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent, meaning no fixed figure can be cited for direct comparison. This is a fundamental difference: one is a discrete card with its own VRAM, the other is an integrated processor relying on the host system's memory.

Clock behavior also diverges significantly. The Quadro K2200 runs at a base clock of 1046 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while its memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Vega 8 has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz but boosts to 1100 MHz, a wide dynamic range typical of integrated parts. Compute output reflects this: the Quadro K2200 reaches 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32, while the Vega 8 achieves 1,126.4 GFLOPS FP32, a 28% difference. Notably, the Vega 8 supports FP16 at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the Quadro K2200 does not list, suggesting AMD's integrated part has a compute flexibility advantage for workloads that use half-precision.

API support shows a mixed picture. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K2200 lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 8 lists Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 8 claims DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro K2200's DirectX 12 (11_0), indicating a higher feature level on the AMD side. The Quadro K2200 also supports Geekbench Metal (its benchmark list includes only OpenCL and Vulkan, but the architecture is known to support Metal, though this is not explicitly in the data).

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data gives the Quadro K2200 a clear win in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. This makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks that rely on these APIs, such as general-purpose GPU computing, rendering workloads, and Vulkan-based games or applications. Its 29.6% OpenCL lead and 24% Vulkan lead are substantial enough to matter in real-world performance where these APIs are the bottleneck.

The Quadro K2200 also wins on raw throughput metrics. Its higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.8 GPixel/s) directly benefits resolution-heavy workloads, such as multi-monitor setups or high-resolution rendering. The texture rate advantage (44.96 GTexel/s versus 35.2 GTexel/s) supports texture-heavy scenes, and the FP32 compute lead (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS) makes it more capable for scientific or simulation workloads that use single-precision floats.

The Vega 8 has one concrete advantage in the data: FP16 compute. Its 2.253 TFLOPS FP16 capability, with a 2:1 ratio, suggests it can handle half-precision workloads more efficiently than the Quadro K2200, which lists no FP16 figure. This could be relevant for AI inference or certain media processing tasks that use FP16. Additionally, the Vega 8's higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0) means it supports more advanced DirectX 12 features, which could translate to better compatibility or performance in newer games that use those features, though the benchmark data does not include a DirectX test to confirm this.

The Vega 8 also wins on power efficiency by the numbers available. Its TDP is 25 W versus the Quadro K2200's 68 W, meaning it draws far less power, which is critical for laptops or compact systems. The Quadro K2200 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Vega 8 is an IGP with no separate power requirements. For systems where power draw is a constraint, the Vega 8 is the more appropriate choice, despite its lower performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. Process node: the Quadro K2200 uses 28 nm, the Vega 8 uses 14 nm. Transistor count: 1,870 million versus 4,940 million, with die sizes of 148 mm² versus 210 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 23.5M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds: the Quadro K2200 has a base of 1046 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz, while the Vega 8 has a base of 300 MHz and boost of 1100 MHz. Memory: the Quadro K2200 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 8 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Vega 8's memory type and bus width are both listed as system shared, meaning no dedicated VRAM.

Compute units: shading units are 640 versus 512, TMUs are 40 versus 32, ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 44.96 GTexel/s versus 35.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS. FP16 is not listed for the Quadro K2200, but the Vega 8 lists 2.253 TFLOPS.

Power and physical: TDP is 68 W versus 25 W. The Quadro K2200 is single-slot, the Vega 8 is IGP. The Quadro K2200 has no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Vega 8 has no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro K2200, IGP for the Vega 8. Display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro K2200, motherboard dependent for the Vega 8. Dimensions: the Quadro K2200 is 202 mm (8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, while the Vega 8 has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: 2014-07-21 for the Quadro K2200, 2018-02-11 for the Vega 8. Production status is end-of-life for both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 averages 10,761 across its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 averages 9,221, a difference of 1,540 points.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2200 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Vega 8's 8,822, giving NVIDIA a 29.6% lead.

Q: Does the Vega 8 have any performance advantage over the Quadro K2200?

A: Yes, the Vega 8 lists FP16 compute at 2.253 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K2200 has no FP16 figure recorded. The Vega 8 also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, while the Vega 8 has a TDP of 25 W, meaning the AMD integrated GPU draws significantly less power.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus. The Vega 8 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 has a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm², compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200's 12.6 million per mm², due to the smaller 14 nm process node.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark, with a 29.6% lead in OpenCL and a 24% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 10,761 versus 9,221 places it in a higher performance tier, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 560 Ti and MX350, while the Vega 8's rivals include the GTX 960 and GTX 850M, all of which score lower. For any user who prioritizes raw compute performance, particularly in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro K2200 is the superior choice.

However, the Vega 8 is not without merit. Its 25 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its FP16 capability at 2.253 TFLOPS offers a compute path the Quadro K2200 lacks. The higher DirectX feature level (12_1) also suggests better support for modern DirectX 12 features. For integrated systems where power draw is critical, or for workloads that leverage FP16, the Vega 8 is the preferable part. The Quadro K2200, with its 68 W TDP and dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory, is designed for discrete, performance-oriented tasks, while the Vega 8 is a low-power integrated solution. The choice depends entirely on whether the user needs the Quadro K2200's benchmark-leading performance or the Vega 8's efficiency and FP16 flexibility. The recorded data does not show a scenario where the Vega 8 outperforms the Quadro K2200 in the tested APIs, but its feature set makes it a viable option for specific use cases.