NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

The data reveals two NVIDIA parts from adjacent eras with different design philosophies: the GeForce GTX 780M, a mobile flagship built on the Kepler architecture with a 3,540 million transistor GPU, and the Quadro K2200, a professional workstation card built on the Maxwell architecture with a much smaller 1,870 million transistor chip. Both target the same 28 nm TSMC process, but their benchmark trajectories diverge sharply, with the GTX 780M winning both head-to-head tests by margins of 11.7% and 25.8% respectively, while the Quadro K2200 counters with higher clock speeds and a more modern feature set. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the GTX 780M posts 11,261 versus the Quadro K2200's 10,761, a difference of roughly 4.6%, yet the two cards sit at nearly identical percentile ranks of 50 and 49 among all GPUs, suggesting that despite the GTX 780M's wins, the Quadro K2200 remains competitive in the broader landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 780M wins both available tests, yet the magnitude of each victory tells a different story about where these cards excel. In the geekbench_opencl test, the GTX 780M scores 12,769 against the Quadro K2200's 11,431, a delta of 11.7%. This is a solid but not overwhelming margin, reflecting the GTX 780M's substantial hardware advantage in raw compute resources. The Quadro K2200's higher base clock of 1,046 MHz versus 771 MHz helps it close some of the gap, but the GTX 780M's 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units overwhelm the Quadro K2200's 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. The OpenCL result suggests that the GTX 780M's parallel compute throughput, measured at 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro K2200, translates directly into a meaningful but not overwhelming performance lead.

The geekbench_vulkan test shows a far more decisive outcome. Here the GTX 780M scores 12,696 versus the Quadro K2200's 10,090, a delta of 25.8%. This is more than double the OpenCL margin, and it points to something interesting about the two architectures' handling of modern graphics APIs. The GTX 780M, despite being the older Kepler design, demonstrates a Vulkan advantage that cannot be explained by raw specs alone. The Quadro K2200's Maxwell architecture is newer, yet it falls significantly behind in this test. One possible interpretation is that the GTX 780M's 256-bit memory bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a substantial advantage for Vulkan workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, compared to the Quadro K2200's 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Another factor could be driver maturity or optimization differences, but the data shows only the result, not the cause. What is clear is that in Vulkan, the GTX 780M outperforms the Quadro K2200 by a margin that rivals the difference between it and its own nearest rivals.

The GTX 780M's average benchmark score of 11,261 sits just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and the AMD FirePro W4300, both of which score around 11,225-11,228. This places the GTX 780M in a tight cluster where its nearest rivals are all within 1.6% of its score. The Quadro K2200's average of 10,761, by contrast, sits 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, showing that it competes in a different performance tier entirely. When both cards are placed in the same benchmark, the GTX 780M's wins are consistent, but the context of their respective rival pools reveals that the Quadro K2200 is not dramatically outclassed—it is simply positioned in a lower performance bracket.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins both head-to-head tests. It beats the Quadro K2200 by 11.7% in geekbench_opencl and by 25.8% in geekbench_vulkan, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, while the Quadro K2200 averages 10,761. This represents a lead of about 4.6% for the GTX 780M, yet both GPUs sit at nearly the same percentile rank: 50 for the GTX 780M and 49 for the Quadro K2200.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 780M has a 256-bit memory bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K2200 has a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 780M therefore offers roughly twice the memory bandwidth of the Quadro K2200, which likely contributes to its larger Vulkan win.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Quadro K2200 has significantly higher clocks. Its base clock is 1,046 MHz with a boost of 1,124 MHz, compared to the GTX 780M's base of 771 MHz and boost of 797 MHz. Despite this clock advantage, the Quadro K2200 loses both benchmark tests.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Quadro K2200 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Quadro K2200 winning zero tests. The GTX 780M wins both the geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan comparisons.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 780M sits 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300, and 1.6% above the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q. The Quadro K2200 sits 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro 450, 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, and 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6600S.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the transistor counts tell a tale of different design scales: the GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors across a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GM107, by contrast, contains only 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.6M per mm². The Quadro K2200's smaller, denser chip confirms Maxwell's architectural efficiency, but it simply has fewer resources to work with.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically, with the GTX 780M fielding 1,536 shading units against the Quadro K2200's 640. Similarly, the texture mapping units stand at 128 versus 40, and the ROPs at 32 versus 16. These disparities translate into a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s for the GTX 780M, versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s for the Quadro K2200. The FP32 compute figures follow suit: 2.448 TFLOPS for the GTX 780M versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro K2200.

Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which makes sense given their release dates and target markets. The GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and the newer Vulkan 1.4. That Vulkan version difference is notable: the Quadro K2200 supports a more recent Vulkan specification, yet it still loses decisively in the Vulkan benchmark, suggesting that API version support does not automatically translate to performance superiority.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 780M has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 797 MHz, while the Quadro K2200 runs at 1,046 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost—a 35.7% higher base clock and a 41.0% higher boost clock. Memory configurations differ in bus width (256-bit versus 128-bit) and bandwidth (160.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), though both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at approximately 5 Gbps effective. The memory clock is nearly identical, with the GTX 780M at 1250 MHz and the Quadro K2200 at 1253 MHz.

The GTX 780M is a mobile part with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and an MXM Module slot width, drawing 122 W TDP with no power connectors and display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro K2200 is a desktop workstation card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, a single-slot form factor, dimensions of 202 mm by 111 mm, a 68 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 780M preceded the Quadro K2200 by over a year, releasing in May 2013 versus July 2014, and the Quadro K2200's generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite using the Maxwell architecture—an apparent naming inconsistency that the data does not resolve. The GTX 780M's predecessor and successor are GeForce 600M and GeForce 800M, while the Quadro K2200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a clear case for the GTX 780M as the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and its 256-bit memory bus provides double the bandwidth of the Quadro K2200. The 25.8% Vulkan margin is the single most decisive result, indicating that the GTX 780M's advantage is particularly pronounced in modern graphics workloads. However, the Quadro K2200 is not without merit: its 68 W TDP is nearly half the GTX 780M's 122 W, making it a far more power-efficient option, and its higher clock speeds suggest that it can punch above its weight in clock-sensitive workloads. The Quadro K2200 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the GTX 780M's 1.2.175, which could matter for future software compatibility.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the GTX 780M is the clear choice based on the data. Its 2-0 head-to-head record and 4.6% average score advantage leave little ambiguity. For users who need a low-power, single-slot workstation card with a modern Vulkan implementation and the Quadro's professional display outputs, the Quadro K2200 offers a different set of trade-offs that the benchmark scores do not capture. The GTX 780M's mobile form factor and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs make it less suitable for desktop workstation use, while the Quadro K2200's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and fixed display outputs are designed for professional environments.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in every benchmarked scenario, but its strengths are most pronounced in Vulkan, where it leads by 25.8%. This suggests that applications leveraging Vulkan's explicit multi-threading and low-overhead features will see the largest performance gap between the two cards. The GTX 780M's 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus provide a substantial foundation for bandwidth-hungry workloads, and its 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 compute capacity puts it in a higher performance tier. Its 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs give it a clear advantage in texture-heavy and compute-heavy tasks.

The Quadro K2200 wins in power efficiency and form factor, though these are not benchmark scores. Its 68 W TDP versus 122 W means it generates significantly less heat and requires less cooling, making it suitable for compact workstation builds. Its single-slot design and 250 W suggested PSU requirement make it an easy drop-in upgrade for existing systems. The Quadro K2200's higher base and boost clocks—1,046 MHz and 1,124 MHz versus 771 MHz and 797 MHz—could provide an advantage in lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive workloads that do not scale with core count. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is more current than the GTX 780M's 1.2.175, potentially offering better compatibility with newer software. The Quadro K2200 also has fixed display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it immediately usable in desktop systems without the "Portable Device Dependent" limitation of the GTX 780M.

In the context of their nearest rivals, the GTX 780M's 0.3% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300 shows that it is tightly grouped with those cards, while the Quadro K2200's 1.1% deficit behind the GeForce MX350 places it in a slightly lower bracket. The data ultimately shows that the GTX 780M is the stronger performer, but the Quadro K2200's lower power draw, desktop-ready design, and newer Vulkan support make it a viable alternative for specific professional use cases where those attributes matter more than raw benchmark scores.