NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the stronger GPU in this pairing. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 11.3% with a score of 11,431 against the GeForce GTX 950A's 10,273. The Quadro also holds a higher average benchmark score of 10,761 compared to the GTX 950A's 10,273, and it sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, one point above the GTX 950A's 48th percentile. For any workload relying on OpenCL compute, the Quadro K2200 is the clear pick.

The GeForce GTX 950A's only statistical advantage is its lower power draw relative to its performance tier, but that does not translate into a single benchmark victory. It trails in the only direct comparison and has a lower average score. The GTX 950A's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, scores 10,362, which is 0.9% higher, while the Quadro K2200's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10,804, a mere 0.4% lower than the Quadro. Neither card has a decisive edge over its immediate market neighbors; the Quadro's deltaPct against its nearest rivals ranges from -1.1% to 1.2%, while the GTX 950A's ranges from -2% to 2%.

Which should you pick? If the task is compute-heavy and the platform can accept a standard single-slot PCIe card, the Quadro K2200 is the superior choice based on raw scores. If the requirement is a compact MXM module for a portable device, the GTX 950A is the only one of the two that fits that form factor, as its slot width is listed as "MXM Module" and its bus interface is "MXM-B (3.0)." The Quadro K2200, by contrast, uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and measures 202 mm in length. For performance per benchmark point, the Quadro is ahead; for physical compatibility with MXM-based systems, the GTX 950A is the sole option.

# Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same fundamental architecture. They share the GM107 chip, the Maxwell architecture, a 28 nm process node from TSMC, 1,870 million transistors, and a die size of 148 mm². The transistor density is identical at 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. Both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The pixel rate is the same at 17.98 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is identical at 44.96 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is also equal at 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The differences are in the memory subsystem and the physical design. The Quadro K2200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, resulting in only 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth — less than half. This is the single largest architectural gap between the two cards. The memory clock differs accordingly: the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 950A runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective speed.

The generation labels differ. The Quadro K2200 is listed under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite being a Maxwell chip, while the GTX 950A is under "GeForce 900A." The release dates differ as well: the Quadro launched on 2014-07-21, and the GTX 950A on 2015-03-12. The Quadro's predecessor is "Quadro Fermi" and its successor is "Quadro Maxwell"; the GTX 950A's predecessor is "GeForce 800A" with no successor listed. Both are end-of-life products.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins in every benchmark comparison available. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 11,431 against 10,273, a 11.3% advantage. This is the only direct benchmark between the two, and the Quadro takes it decisively. The Quadro also wins on memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), memory type (GDDR5 vs DDR3), memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s), and effective memory speed (5 Gbps vs 2 Gbps). Its base clock is higher at 1046 MHz versus 993 MHz, though both boost to 1124 MHz. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 10,761 is 4.7% higher than the GTX 950A's 10,273.

The GTX 950A wins on power efficiency in one narrow sense: it has a TDP of 75 W versus the Quadro's 68 W, meaning the Quadro actually draws less power. Wait — the data shows the Quadro at 68 W and the GTX 950A at 75 W, so the Quadro wins there too. The GTX 950A's only unique advantages are its MXM form factor, which allows it to fit in portable devices, and its later release date. It has no benchmark wins, no memory advantages, and no clock advantages. The data shows a single benchmark victory for the Quadro and zero for the GTX 950A.

For use cases: the Quadro is better suited for desktop workstations with PCIe slots, delivering higher memory bandwidth and double the VRAM. The GTX 950A is suited for MXM-based laptops or compact systems where the Quadro's PCIe footprint is incompatible. If the workload is memory-bandwidth sensitive — such as large data sets in OpenCL — the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s is a 150% bandwidth advantage that will show up in real-world compute tasks.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has an average benchmark score of 10,761, compared to the GeForce GTX 950A's 10,273. The Quadro also sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, one point higher than the GTX 950A's 48th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2200 in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the GTX 950A scores 10,273. This gives the Quadro an 11.3% advantage in that benchmark.

Q: What are the memory differences between these two cards?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth and 5 Gbps effective speed. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus but only 32.03 GB/s bandwidth and 2 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, while the GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro is the lower-power card by 7 W.

Q: Are these cards compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The Quadro K2200 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length. The GTX 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM module, designed for portable devices. They are not physically interchangeable.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431, and the GTX 950A scores 10,273. The delta is 11.3% in favor of the Quadro. This is a substantial margin for a single benchmark, indicating that the Quadro's memory architecture — GDDR5 at 80.19 GB/s versus DDR3 at 32.03 GB/s — provides a meaningful compute advantage even though both cards share the same GM107 chip, 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and identical FP32 throughput of 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this result. The Quadro's average is 10,761, while the GTX 950A's is 10,273. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (-0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10,883 (-1.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti at 10,690 (0.7%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10,629 (1.2%). The GTX 950A's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362 (-0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10,400 (-1.2%), the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 (2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (-2%). The Quadro's position among its rivals is tight, with all deltaPct values within a 2.3 percentage point band. The GTX 950A's rival deltas span a 4 percentage point band, showing more variance in its competitive set.

In terms of raw compute, both cards are identical: FP32 at 1,438.7 GFLOPS, pixel rate at 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 44.96 GTexel/s. The performance difference comes entirely from memory bandwidth and capacity. The Quadro's 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is 150% higher than the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s. That explains why the OpenCL score gap (11.3%) is smaller than the bandwidth gap — compute-bound tasks that fit in cache see less impact, but memory-bound tasks will see a much larger divergence. The Quadro's 4 GB VRAM also allows larger working sets than the GTX 950A's 2 GB.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. Memory size is 4 GB on the Quadro versus 2 GB on the GTX 950A. Memory type is GDDR5 on the Quadro versus DDR3 on the GTX 950A. Memory bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s. Effective memory speed is 5 Gbps versus 2 Gbps. The memory clock is 1253 MHz on the Quadro versus 1001 MHz on the GTX 950A.

Base clock differs: the Quadro runs at 1046 MHz, the GTX 950A at 993 MHz. Boost clock is identical at 1124 MHz. TDP is 68 W for the Quadro and 75 W for the GTX 950A. The slot width is "Single-slot" for the Quadro and "MXM Module" for the GTX 950A. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro and MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 950A. The Quadro has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 950A has no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 950A's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro has dimensions of 202 mm length and 111 mm height; the GTX 950A has no dimensions listed.

Release dates differ: the Quadro launched on 2014-07-21, the GTX 950A on 2015-03-12. The Quadro's generation is "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" and its predecessor is "Quadro Fermi," successor "Quadro Maxwell." The GTX 950A's generation is "GeForce 900A," predecessor "GeForce 800A," with no successor listed. Power connectors are "None" for both, and both are end-of-life products. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed in the data.