NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560's 9,058 points. That is a 26.2% advantage for the Quadro, a substantial margin in compute workloads. The GTX 560 does not win a single head-to-head test in the recorded data.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 10,761. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, which is 0.4% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, which is 1.1% faster). The Quadro also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti by 0.7% (10,690) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S by 1.2% (10,629). This places the Quadro in a tight cluster where small deltas define the ranking.

The GTX 560, by contrast, sits at the 45th percentile with an average score of 9,058. Its nearest rivals are notably different in character. The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9,037 (0.2% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 scores 9,022 (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918 (1.6% slower). The only rival ahead of it is the AMD Radeon 890M at 9,210, which is 1.7% faster. The GTX 560's position among these older or lower-tier parts underscores its age and limited compute throughput.

The 26.2% gap in OpenCL is the single most important number here. It is not a marginal difference; the Quadro is firmly ahead in raw compute performance. The GTX 560 does have a higher memory bandwidth (128.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), but that does not translate into a win in the recorded benchmark. The data shows that the Quadro's architecture and compute capabilities overcome the bandwidth deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins in the only measured benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. This is a compute-oriented test that stresses general-purpose GPU performance, and the Quadro's 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput is significantly higher than the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS. That is a 32.2% raw compute advantage, which aligns closely with the observed 26.2% benchmark lead. For tasks like OpenCL acceleration in productivity applications, rendering, or scientific compute, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The GTX 560 has no benchmark wins in the database. However, its specifications suggest where it might hold an edge in real-world use, even if the data does not confirm it. It has a 256-bit memory bus versus the Quadro's 128-bit bus, giving it 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth against 80.19 GB/s. This is a 59.7% bandwidth advantage. In memory-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution texture streaming or certain gaming workloads, the GTX 560 could theoretically perform better, but the recorded benchmarks do not include a test that isolates memory throughput.

The GTX 560 also has more texture mapping units (56 versus 40) and more render output units (32 versus 16). Its texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s is nearly identical to the Quadro's 44.96 GTexel/s, despite the fewer shading units. The pixel rate, however, favors the Quadro at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s, a 58.6% advantage. The data indicates that the Quadro is better at pixel-heavy work.

For the user, the split is simple. If the workload is compute-focused, the Quadro wins outright. If the workload is memory-heavy, the GTX 560 has the theoretical edge in bandwidth, but no benchmark in the database confirms a practical win. The recorded data gives the Quadro all the victories.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras of NVIDIA design. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip based on Fermi 2.0, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink is significant: the Maxwell chip packs 1,870 million transistors into 148 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Fermi chip has 1,950 million transistors spread over 332 mm², a density of just 5.9 million per mm². The Quadro achieves more transistors per area with a slightly lower total count, which is a direct benefit of the denser manufacturing process.

The shader configuration differs markedly. The Quadro has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Even though the GTX 560 has fewer shaders, it has more TMUs and ROPs, which explains its comparable texture rate and higher pixel fill rate potential. The Quadro compensates with a higher clock speed: its base is 1046 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the GTX 560 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 560 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s. The GTX 560 has less capacity but more bandwidth, a trade-off typical of its era. The Quadro's larger framebuffer is better suited to modern workloads that need more VRAM.

Feature support also differs. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560 has no recorded Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro also has a newer display output suite with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the GTX 560 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The Quadro's DisplayPort support is more modern and more flexible for professional monitors.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The Quadro has a TDP of 68 W, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Quadro is far more efficient and easier to install in compact systems. The GTX 560's length is 210 mm versus the Quadro's 202 mm, so the Quadro is also slightly shorter.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 26.2% higher than the GTX 560's 9,058. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: Does the GTX 560 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the GTX 560 has a 256-bit memory bus delivering 128.0 GB/s, while the Quadro K2200 has a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 560 has about 59.7% more bandwidth, but no recorded benchmark shows this translating into a win.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W, requires 2x 6-pin connectors, and a 450 W suggested PSU. The Quadro uses less than half the power.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 has no recorded Vulkan support, so it is not viable for Vulkan-based applications.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 560 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. The Quadro has four times the capacity.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro K2200's Maxwell chip has 12.6 million transistors per mm², while the GTX 560's Fermi 2.0 chip has 5.9 million per mm². The Quadro is more than twice as dense despite having slightly fewer total transistors (1,870 million versus 1,950 million).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every key specification. The Quadro K2200 has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the GTX 560 has no recorded base or boost clocks. The Quadro's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the GTX 560's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 4 GB on the Quadro versus 1024 MB on the GTX 560. The bus width is 128-bit on the Quadro versus 256-bit on the GTX 560, resulting in bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. Shading units are 640 versus 336, TMUs are 40 versus 56, and ROPs are 16 versus 32. The Quadro's pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s versus 11.34 GPixel/s, while texture rates are close at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 45.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS.

Process node is 28 nm versus 40 nm. Die size is 148 mm² versus 332 mm². Transistor count is 1,870 million versus 1,950 million, with density of 12.6M/mm² versus 5.9M/mm². TDP is 68 W versus 150 W. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus 2x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. Vulkan support is 1.4 versus none. Length is 202 mm versus 210 mm. Release dates are July 21, 2014 versus May 16, 2011. The GTX 560 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the superior card in measured performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 26.2%, has more than double the FP32 compute throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS), and does so at less than half the power draw (68 W versus 150 W). It also offers four times the VRAM (4 GB versus 1 GB), modern DisplayPort outputs, Vulkan support, and a smaller physical footprint. The GTX 560's only notable advantages are memory bandwidth (128.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) and higher TMU/ROP counts, which do not appear in any recorded benchmark win.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the Quadro K2200 is the rational pick for compute workloads, productivity applications, or any task where OpenCL performance matters. Its efficiency and modern feature set make it easier to integrate into a system. The GTX 560 might appeal to someone who prioritizes memory bandwidth above all else, but the database shows no scenario where that translates into a measurable victory. The Quadro K2200 is the recommended choice based on the recorded data.