NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two NVIDIA cards, with each taking one benchmark win. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 edges ahead with a score of 11,431 versus the GTX 760’s 11,299, a narrow 1.2% margin. That is a close result, well within run-to-run variance territory, but the database credits the Quadro with the win. The more decisive contest comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 760 dominates with 12,551 points against the Quadro’s 10,090, a substantial 19.6% advantage. That is not a small gap; it reflects a real difference in how the two cards handle modern compute workloads through Vulkan.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K2200’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 10,761, while the GTX 760 averages 9,458. That 13.8% difference in average scores flatters the Quadro, but it is skewed by the fact that the GTX 760 has an additional Metal benchmark result (4,524) that drags its average down. The two shared tests tell a more balanced story: one close OpenCL win for the Quadro, one clear Vulkan win for the GTX 760.

The percentile rankings reinforce this mixed picture. The Quadro sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 760 lands at the 46th. Both are mid-pack cards, but the Quadro’s slightly higher percentile matches its slightly higher average score. The nearest rivals for the Quadro include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (average 10,804, just 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, 1.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, 1.2% behind). The GTX 760’s nearest neighbors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK (9,474, only 0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, 1.6% behind). These deltas are tiny, meaning both cards are clustered with peers of similar overall performance, but the head-to-head Vulkan result shows the GTX 760 has a specific strength that the Quadro cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro K2200 narrowly wins Geekbench OpenCL with 11,431 points versus the GTX 760’s 11,299, a 1.2% difference. It is a close margin, but the database records the Quadro as the winner.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 760 in Vulkan?

A: The GTX 760 scores 12,551 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the Quadro K2200’s 10,090, making it 19.6% faster. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any shared benchmark.

Q: Why does the GTX 760 have a lower average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 760’s average is 9,458, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4,524 that the Quadro does not have. The Quadro’s average of 10,761 is based only on its OpenCL and Vulkan results. The Metal score significantly lowers the GTX 760’s average despite it winning the Vulkan test.

Q: What are the memory differences between these cards?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 has more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The GTX 760 leads in both. Its pixel rate is 24.77 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 99.07 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. The GTX 760 is roughly 38% faster in pixel throughput and 120% faster in texture throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, an older version of the Vulkan specification.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different design goals. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip, built on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chip sizes diverge sharply. The Quadro’s GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The GTX 760’s GK104 crams 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 760’s chip is nearly double the physical size and contains nearly double the transistors.

The compute resources reflect that difference. The Quadro has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 80% more shaders, 140% more TMUs, and 100% more ROPs on the GTX 760. Clock speeds differ as well: the Quadro runs at a base of 1046 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, while the GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost. The Quadro’s clocks are higher, but the GTX 760’s massive parallel advantage overwhelms that in raw throughput. The FP32 compute rating shows this clearly: the Quadro delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS, while the GTX 760 delivers 2.378 TFLOPS, about 65% more.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). For a gaming card, the GTX 760’s bandwidth advantage is critical, while the Quadro’s larger capacity suits professional workloads that need to hold more data on-card.

The cards also differ in power and physical design. The Quadro has a 68 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot. The GTX 760 has a 170 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and occupies a dual-slot design. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro is 202 mm long, the GTX 760 is 241 mm.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For compute tasks using Vulkan, the GTX 760 is the stronger card by a wide margin, 19.6% ahead in the recorded benchmark. Its raw shader count, texture units, and memory bandwidth give it a fundamental throughput advantage that shows up in this API. For OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 wins, but by only 1.2%, which is effectively a tie in practical terms. The Quadro’s advantage lies elsewhere: it achieves this near-parity in OpenCL while drawing only 68 W versus 170 W, fitting in a single slot, requiring no external power connectors, and offering 4 GB of memory compared to 2 GB. The GTX 760 wins on raw performance in the modern Vulkan API and in pixel/texture throughput, but it costs far more in power, space, and thermal envelope. The Quadro’s 49th percentile versus the GTX 760’s 46th percentile reflects their average scores, but the head-to-head Vulkan result is the more telling metric for modern workloads. Pick the GTX 760 if you need maximum compute performance in Vulkan and have the power supply and case space. Pick the Quadro if you need low power draw, single-slot installation, larger memory capacity, or are working primarily in OpenCL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro K2200 | GTX 760 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 40 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 24.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 99.07 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 2.378 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 68 W | 170 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2013-06-24 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 249 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760 wins decisively in Vulkan compute, with a 19.6% lead over the Quadro in Geekbench Vulkan. It also dominates in raw throughput metrics: 65% higher FP32 compute, 38% higher pixel rate, 120% higher texture rate, and 140% more texture mapping units. Its 192.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the Quadro’s 80.19 GB/s, which is critical for bandwidth-hungry workloads. The GTX 760 also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16) and nearly double the shading units (1,152 versus 640). For any task that pushes heavy parallel compute, especially through Vulkan, the GTX 760 is the clear choice. It also carries a launch MSRP of 249 USD, which the database records.

The Quadro K2200 wins in OpenCL, though narrowly at 1.2%. Its real strengths are in efficiency and capacity. At 68 W TDP, it draws less than half the power of the GTX 760’s 170 W and requires no external power connectors. It fits in a single slot versus the GTX 760’s dual-slot design, making it suitable for dense workstation builds. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the GTX 760’s 2 GB, which matters for workloads that need to hold larger datasets on-card, even if the bandwidth is lower. The Quadro also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175) and uses a more efficient transistor density (12.6M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm²). For OpenCL-specific workloads, low-power systems, or single-slot constraints, the Quadro is the better fit. The two cards each win one head-to-head benchmark, so the choice depends entirely on the API and workload priorities.