NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760, a Kepler-generation card from 2013, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, a Pascal-generation professional card from 2019, occupy different eras of GPU design. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the Quadro P2200 winning both head-to-head tests by a wide margin, yet the GTX 760 holds its own in specific legacy metrics. This analysis breaks down their comparative performance, architectural differences, and use-case scenarios based strictly on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is limited to two compute-oriented tests, and the results are heavily skewed toward the Quadro P2200. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the GTX 760 posts 11,299. This represents a deltaPct of -65.1% from the GTX 760's perspective, meaning the Quadro P2200 is roughly 2.9 times faster in raw compute throughput. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the Quadro P2200 scores 31,351 against the GTX 760's 12,551, a deltaPct of -60%. In both instances, the Quadro P2200's advantage is substantial and consistent, indicating a clear superiority in modern compute workloads.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the GTX 760's average sits at 9,458, while the Quadro P2200's average is 8,686. This is a curious inversion: despite losing both head-to-head tests, the GTX 760 has a higher average score. The explanation lies in the benchmark suites used. The GTX 760's average is derived from its three Geekbench results (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the Quadro P2200's average includes nine tests, many of which are older DirectX and Passmark tests where it scores very low (e.g., 33 in Passmark DirectX 12, 45 in DirectX 10). The Quadro P2200's strong Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are dragged down by these legacy DirectX results, while the GTX 760's average is purely based on modern compute APIs. Consequently, the percentile rankings are close, with the GTX 760 at the 46th percentile and the Quadro P2200 at the 44th percentile, despite the Quadro's overwhelming victory in the direct comparisons.

In terms of nearest rivals, the GTX 760's average score of 9,458 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK (9,474) and 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313). The Quadro P2200's average of 8,686 is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595). These rival positions show that both cards sit in a similar performance tier when averaged across all tests, but the head-to-head data clarifies that the Quadro P2200 is the stronger card for modern compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip based on Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 16 nm process. This smaller node allows it to fit 4,400 million transistors onto a smaller 200 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The newer process node and denser packing give the Quadro P2200 a clear architectural advantage in efficiency and potential compute density.

The shading and texture resources differ as well. The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro P2200 has more shading units at 1,280, but fewer TMUs at 80, and more ROPs at 40. This configuration suggests the Quadro P2200 is better optimized for pixel throughput and compute shading, while the GTX 760 leans slightly more toward texture-heavy workloads. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate the RTX era.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The GTX 760 runs at a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz. The Quadro P2200 starts at a slightly higher base of 1,000 MHz but boosts aggressively to 1,493 MHz. This higher boost clock, combined with the newer architecture, results in dramatically better throughput rates: the Quadro P2200 achieves 59.72 GPixel/s pixel rate and 119.4 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the GTX 760's 24.77 GPixel/s and 99.07 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS FP32, while the GTX 760 manages 2.378 TFLOPS. The Quadro also supports FP16 at 59.72 GFLOPS (with a 1:64 ratio), a feature the GTX 760 lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the Quadro P2200 is the clear winner in modern compute and graphics workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,344 is 186% higher than the GTX 760's 11,299, and its Vulkan score of 31,351 is 150% higher than the GTX 760's 12,551. The Quadro P2200 also wins on raw specifications: it has more shading units (1,280 vs. 1,152), more ROPs (40 vs. 32), higher boost clock (1,493 MHz vs. 1,032 MHz), and significantly higher pixel and texture rates. For any task that leverages modern APIs like Vulkan or OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 is unequivocally the better performer.

The GTX 760, however, is not without its niches. Its average benchmark score of 9,458 is higher than the Quadro P2200's 8,686, which reflects its stronger showing in Geekbench Metal (4,524) and its relatively balanced performance across its three tests. The GTX 760 also has a wider memory bus (256-bit vs. 160-bit) and a higher number of TMUs (96 vs. 80), which could theoretically benefit texture-heavy workloads, though the Quadro's higher texture rate (119.4 GTexel/s vs. 99.07 GTexel/s) contradicts any practical advantage. In terms of nearest rivals, the GTX 760's closest competitor is the GTX TITAN BLACK (0.2% ahead), while the Quadro P2200's closest is the GTX 460 v2 (0.7% behind), indicating the GTX 760 performs slightly better relative to its peers in the aggregate.

Where the Quadro P2200 wins decisively is in memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, yielding 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 760 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the Quadro's faster memory (10 Gbps effective vs. 6 Gbps effective) gives it a bandwidth edge. This makes the Quadro P2200 more suitable for large datasets and higher-resolution textures, while the GTX 760's smaller memory pool is a limiting factor for modern workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond performance. The GTX 760 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 170 W, requiring a dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 450 W. The Quadro P2200, by contrast, has a TDP of just 75 W, fits in a single-slot form factor, requires no power connectors, and only needs a 250 W PSU. This makes the Quadro P2200 dramatically more power-efficient and easier to integrate into compact systems.

Memory specifications differ notably. The GTX 760 features 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 6 Gbps effective speed. The Quadro P2200 features 5 GB of GDDR5X with a 160-bit bus and 10 Gbps effective speed. While the bus width is narrower, the higher-speed memory and larger capacity give the Quadro P2200 a clear advantage in bandwidth (200.2 GB/s vs. 192.3 GB/s) and capacity (5 GB vs. 2 GB). Display outputs also diverge: the GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro P2200 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, reflecting its professional multi-monitor focus.

API support shows the Quadro P2200 is more forward-looking. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. Physical dimensions also differ: the GTX 760 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, while the Quadro P2200 is 201 mm (7.9 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The GTX 760 was released in June 2013 with a launch MSRP of 249 USD, while the Quadro P2200 was released in June 2019, and no launch MSRP is provided.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,458, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P2200's 8,686. However, the Quadro P2200 wins both head-to-head Geekbench tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) by large margins.

Q: Does the Quadro P2200 support DirectX 12 (12_1)?

A: Yes, the Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 760 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, making the Quadro more compatible with newer APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 6 Gbps effective speed, achieving 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus with 10 Gbps effective speed, achieving 200.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 760 has a TDP of 170 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro also suggests a 250 W PSU versus the GTX 760's 450 W suggestion.

Q: How do their Geekbench Vulkan scores compare?

A: The Quadro P2200 scores 31,351 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 760 scores 12,551. This represents a deltaPct of -60% for the GTX 760, meaning the Quadro P2200 is approximately 150% faster.

Q: What are the transistor densities of the two chips?

A: The GTX 760's GK104 chip has a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter (3,540 million transistors on 294 mm²). The Quadro P2200's GP106 chip has a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter (4,400 million transistors on 200 mm²).

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior card for modern compute and graphics workloads. Its decisive wins in Geekbench OpenCL (32,344 vs. 11,299) and Vulkan (31,351 vs. 12,551) show a performance advantage of 60-65% that cannot be ignored. The Quadro P2200 also offers more memory (5 GB vs. 2 GB), higher bandwidth (200.2 GB/s vs. 192.3 GB/s), newer API support (DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4), and significantly better power efficiency (75 W TDP vs. 170 W TDP) in a smaller form factor. For anyone working with modern applications, large datasets, or multi-monitor setups, the Quadro P2200 is the clear choice, despite its lower average benchmark score.

The GTX 760, however, has a niche for legacy users. Its higher average benchmark score (9,458 vs. 8,686) is driven by its Geekbench Metal result (4,524) and its consistent performance across its three tests. Its 256-bit memory bus and higher TMU count (96 vs. 80) are also notable, though they do not translate into practical wins in the head-to-head tests. The GTX 760's closest rival is the GTX TITAN BLACK (0.2% ahead), while the Quadro P2200's closest rival is the GTX 460 v2 (0.7% behind), suggesting the GTX 760 holds its own better against its peers. Ultimately, the GTX 760 is better suited for older DirectX 9/10/11 workloads or users with strict legacy software requirements, while the Quadro P2200 is the data-backed winner for anyone prioritizing modern performance, efficiency, and memory capacity.