NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti occupy the same performance tier, but they achieve it through radically different means. The K2200 edges out the older card in the single available benchmark, but the GTX 560 Ti counters with superior bandwidth and texture throughput, making the choice highly workload-dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K2200 leads with an average benchmark score of 10,761, while the GTX 560 Ti trails at 10,690. The K2200 is 0.7% faster than its rival, a margin that falls within typical run-to-run variance.

Q: How do these cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K2200 wins the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,431 versus 10,690 for the GTX 560 Ti, a decisive 6.9% advantage. This is the only benchmark where both cards were tested.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The K2200 packs 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 560 Ti has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 Ti offers 60% more memory bandwidth despite having less capacity.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro K2200 achieves 12.6M transistors per mm², more than double the GTX 560 Ti's 5.9M per mm². This reflects the newer 28 nm manufacturing process versus the older 40 nm node.

Q: What power connector requirements do these cards have?

A: The Quadro K2200 requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 560 Ti needs two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU. The K2200's 68 W TDP is far lower than the GTX 560 Ti's 170 W.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan (version 1.4). The GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan support listed, though both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,431 versus 10,690 demonstrates superior general-purpose compute performance. The K2200 also holds the only Vulkan support between the two, making it the pick for any Vulkan-based application or workload. Its 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput exceeds the GTX 560 Ti's 1,263.4 GFLOPS by 13.9%, giving it the edge in shader-bound scenarios.

The GTX 560 Ti wins in texture-rich and bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. Its 128.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is 60% higher than the K2200's 80.19 GB/s, and its 52.67 GTexel/s texture rate beats the K2200's 44.96 GTexel/s by 17.1%. The GTX 560 Ti's 64 TMUs versus 40 on the K2200, combined with 32 ROPs versus 16, makes it better suited for fill-rate-limited tasks and high-resolution texture filtering.

The K2200 wins on efficiency and form factor. It is single-slot with no power connectors, a 68 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 560 Ti is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, draws 170 W, and needs a 450 W PSU. The K2200's 202 mm length also makes it easier to fit in compact systems than the GTX 560 Ti's 229 mm.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, part of the Maxwell architecture. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The GTX 560 Ti uses the GF114 chip on TSMC's 40 nm process, belonging to the Fermi 2.0 architecture, with 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die. The K2200's transistor density of 12.6M per mm² dramatically exceeds the GTX 560 Ti's 5.9M per mm².

Core configuration differs substantially. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560 Ti has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K2200 relies on fewer, more powerful shaders, while the GTX 560 Ti packs more texture units and ROPs into a wider memory interface.

API support separates the two. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2200 adds Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 Ti has no Vulkan support listed, limiting its compatibility with modern rendering APIs. The K2200 also supports DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 560 Ti offers mini-HDMI 1.3a instead.

Specification Differences

The memory specifications diverge sharply. The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth and 1253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 560 Ti has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.3 GB/s bandwidth and 1002 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds favor the K2200. It runs at a 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost clock, while the GTX 560 Ti has no listed base or boost clocks. The K2200 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s pixel rate and 44.96 GTexel/s texture rate. The GTX 560 Ti manages 13.17 GPixel/s and 52.67 GTexel/s respectively.

Power and physical characteristics are starkly different. The K2200 has a 68 W TDP, single-slot design, no power connectors, and 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 560 Ti has a 170 W TDP, dual-slot design, two 6-pin connectors, and 450 W suggested PSU. The K2200 measures 202 mm in length, while the GTX 560 Ti is 229 mm.

Display outputs differ: the K2200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 560 Ti offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The K2200 has a 111 mm height; the GTX 560 Ti has no listed height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 against the GTX 560 Ti's 10,690. This 6.9% delta is the K2200's sole win in the head-to-head set, giving it a 1-0 record.

This OpenCL result aligns with the compute-oriented specifications. The K2200's FP32 throughput of 1,438.7 GFLOPS outpaces the GTX 560 Ti's 1,263.4 GFLOPS by 13.9%, and its Maxwell architecture's more efficient shader design likely contributes to the benchmark lead. The K2200 also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score across all tests: 10,761 versus 10,690.

However, the GTX 560 Ti's strengths do not appear in this benchmark. Its 52.67 GTexel/s texture rate and 128.3 GB/s bandwidth are superior, but these advantages manifest in rasterization-heavy workloads rather than OpenCL compute. The GTX 560 Ti's 32 ROPs also give it a pixel fill rate of 13.17 GPixel/s, which, while lower than the K2200's 17.98 GPixel/s, benefits from the wider 256-bit memory bus.

Both cards sit at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the exact same position in the overall performance distribution. The K2200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.4% slower), NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (1.1% faster), and AMD Radeon RX 6600S (1.2% slower). The GTX 560 Ti's nearest rivals include the RX 6600S (0.6% slower), AMD Radeon R9 M275X (1% slower), and AMD Radeon Pro 450 (1.1% faster).

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K2200 as the overall winner. It leads in the only direct benchmark, offers Vulkan support, delivers higher FP32 compute, and does so at a fraction of the power draw. The 6.9% OpenCL advantage is meaningful, and the average benchmark score of 10,761 versus 10,690 confirms a consistent, if modest, performance lead.

Choose the Quadro K2200 if you prioritize compute performance, modern API support, and energy efficiency. Its 4 GB memory capacity, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it the superior choice for compact systems, professional workloads, and any application that leverages Vulkan. The 68 W TDP versus 170 W means lower system requirements and less heat output.

Choose the GTX 560 Ti if your workload is dominated by texture throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 128.3 GB/s bandwidth and 52.67 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the K2200's figures by wide margins, making it potentially faster in texture-bound rendering scenarios. The 256-bit memory bus and 64 TMUs are substantial advantages for certain game workloads, though the card's 1024 MB memory capacity and lack of Vulkan support are notable limitations.

The GTX 560 Ti's launch MSRP was 249 USD. The K2200 has no launch MSRP listed. Both cards are end-of-life products, with the K2200 released in 2014 and the GTX 560 Ti in 2011. For most modern use cases, the K2200's combination of compute performance, memory capacity, and efficiency makes it the stronger recommendation, but the GTX 560 Ti's raw bandwidth advantage keeps it relevant for specific texture-heavy tasks.