NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 represent two very different eras and purposes in NVIDIA’s lineup. The GTX 850M is a 2014 Maxwell-era mobile part, while the Quadro P2200 is a 2019 Pascal-era professional desktop card. Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Quadro P2200 is the clear performance winner, taking both head-to-head tests by massive margins. The GTX 850M, however, holds its own in the lower end of the performance spectrum, sitting near the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the P2200 sits at the 44th percentile. This means the P2200’s raw advantage in specific tests does not translate to a universally higher rank, largely due to its professional focus and driver optimizations. The Verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro P2200 for any compute-heavy or modern API workload where absolute performance matters; pick the GTX 850M only if you are constrained to a legacy mobile platform and need basic DirectX 11-era functionality.

The Verdict

For anyone comparing these two, the data presents a one-sided affair. The Quadro P2200 wins both available head-to-head benchmarks decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P2200 scores 32,344 against the GTX 850M’s 9,821, a delta of -69.6% for the older card. In Vulkan, the margin is even wider: the P2200 scores 31,351 versus 8,782, a -72% delta. This is not a close contest; the P2200 is in a different performance class entirely.

The GTX 850M’s 46th percentile rank and average benchmark score of 9,302 place it in the same neighborhood as the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294) and AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9,313). It is a capable entry-level mobile GPU for its time, but its architecture and memory subsystem are outdated. The Quadro P2200, despite its lower 44th percentile rank, shows a higher ceiling in modern compute tests. Its average score of 8,686 is dragged down by a wide spread of Passmark results, including a low 45 in DirectX 10 and 33 in DirectX 12, which are likely driver-specific anomalies for a professional card. The real-world takeaway: choose the P2200 for serious work, and the GTX 850M only if you have no other option in a legacy laptop.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 850M uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip based on Pascal architecture, built on a more advanced 16 nm TSMC process. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.0M per mm². This alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap—the P2200 has over twice the transistor count and a denser, more modern manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are also generations apart. The GTX 850M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s. The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth—over six times the memory bandwidth. This is critical for compute workloads and high-resolution textures. The P2200 also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0), though both report OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P2200’s FP16 throughput is listed as 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, indicating it is not optimized for half-precision work, while the GTX 850M has no listed FP16 capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro P2200 is massively ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 32,344 versus the GTX 850M’s 9,821, a 69.6% advantage. In Vulkan, it scores 31,351 versus 8,782, a 72% advantage.

Q: Is the GTX 850M competitive with any modern integrated graphics?

A: The data places it in the same bracket as the AMD Radeon Vega 8, which has an average score of 9,221, only 0.9% behind the GTX 850M’s 9,302. It is also within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 960 (9,273).

Q: Does the Quadro P2200 have any weaknesses in the benchmark data?

A: Yes, its Passmark scores are inconsistent. It scores 45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, and 33 in DirectX 12, which are very low compared to its Passmark G3D score of 9,364. This suggests it is not optimized for legacy DirectX gaming paths.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 850M has 32.03 GB/s. The P2200 also has more memory (5 GB versus 2 GB) and uses GDDR5X instead of DDR3.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 22.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 850M has 12.6M per mm². This reflects the newer 16 nm process versus 28 nm.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The GTX 850M was released in March 2014, and the Quadro P2200 in June 2019.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights a generational leap. The most obvious difference is the process node: 28 nm for the GTX 850M versus 16 nm for the Quadro P2200. The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, while the GTX 850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This double in core counts directly contributes to the P2200’s higher fill rates: 59.72 GPixel/s and 119.4 GTexel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s and 36.08 GTexel/s for the GTX 850M.

The clock speeds are also different. The GTX 850M lacks listed base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro P2200 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1493 MHz, with memory at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The P2200’s FP32 compute is 3.822 TFLOPS, dwarfing the GTX 850M’s 1,154.6 GFLOPS. Power consumption differs too: the GTX 850M is rated at 45 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics package), while the P2200 is a 75 W single-slot card with a suggested 250 W PSU. The P2200 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 850M’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to two tests, but both tell the same story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 against the GTX 850M’s 9,821. This is a 69.6% delta, meaning the GTX 850M is nearly 70% slower. For context, the GTX 850M’s average score of 9,302 puts it just 0.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294) and 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 960 (9,273). The P2200’s 32,344 is more than three times higher than any of those scores.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P2200 scores 31,351, while the GTX 850M scores 8,782, a 72% delta. This is an even wider margin, indicating that the P2200’s Pascal architecture handles modern graphics APIs far better than the Maxwell-based GTX 850M. For comparison, the P2200’s nearest rivals in average score include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743, -0.7% delta) and the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746, -0.7% delta), which are all far below the P2200’s head-to-head result. The GTX 850M’s Vulkan score is close to its OpenCL score, showing consistency, but it cannot compete with the P2200’s raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins in every measured category. It dominates in OpenCL compute, which is relevant for professional applications like rendering, simulation, and data processing. Its 200.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 5 GB frame buffer allow it to handle larger datasets and higher-resolution textures than the GTX 850M’s 32.03 GB/s and 2 GB. The P2200 is also the obvious choice for Vulkan workloads, where it is 72% faster. Its single-slot form factor and 75 W TDP make it suitable for workstation builds where space and power are at a premium.

The GTX 850M has no benchmark wins, but it is not without a niche. Its 45 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is designed for laptops, where the P2200’s 201 mm length and single-slot profile would not fit. The GTX 850M’s 46th percentile rank is actually higher than the P2200’s 44th, indicating that its average performance across a broader set of synthetic tests is more consistent. For legacy DirectX 11 games or basic productivity on an older mobile platform, the GTX 850M is serviceable, but it is outclassed in every quantitative comparison against the P2200. If you need modern API support, high compute throughput, or professional display outputs, the P2200 is the only rational choice.