NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head measurement in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273. That is a 68.2% advantage for the Quadro P2200, a gap that places the two cards in completely different performance tiers despite sharing the same 75 W TDP.

To contextualize the GTX 950A's result, its closest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, 0.9% faster), the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400, 1.2% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, 2% faster). The GTX 950A sits slightly below all three, with only the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) trailing it by 2%. This cluster of scores, all within roughly 4% of each other, shows the GTX 950A is competitive with mid-range mobile parts from its era, but it is firmly anchored in that performance band.

The Quadro P2200's OpenCL score of 32,344 is more than three times the GTX 950A's result. Its nearest rivals in the database, however, tell a different story. The GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) is 0.7% slower, the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) is 0.7% slower, and the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595) is 1.1% faster. The Intel Arc A380 (8,558) trails by 1.5%. This is a striking discrepancy: the Quadro P2200's OpenCL score is about 3.7 times higher than its average benchmark score across all tests, indicating that OpenCL is far and away its strongest workload. The card's overall average benchmark score is 8,686, which places it near those rivals, but the OpenCL result shows its raw compute capability is substantially higher than the average suggests.

The GTX 950A has only the single OpenCL benchmark recorded, so its average benchmark score (10,273) is identical to that result. Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 48, slightly above the Quadro P2200's 44th percentile. This means that while the Quadro P2200 wins the head-to-head by a massive margin in compute, the GTX 950A actually sits in a higher percentile overall. That apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the Quadro P2200 has nine recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark DirectX tests with low scores (DirectX 9: 167, DirectX 10: 45, DirectX 11: 70, DirectX 12: 33), which drag its average down considerably.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the Pascal chip to nearly double the transistor count while only increasing die size by about 35%.

The Pascal architecture also brings a significant boost in shader resources. The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, exactly double the GTX 950A's 640. Texture mapping units double from 40 to 80, and ROPs increase from 16 to 40, a 2.5x jump. Clock speeds are higher as well: the GTX 950A runs at a base of 993 MHz with a boost of 1,124 MHz, while the Quadro P2200 starts at 1,000 MHz and boosts to 1,493 MHz. That 369 MHz boost advantage, combined with double the shader count, explains the massive compute gap.

The memory subsystems differ even more dramatically. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 2 Gbps. The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s at 10 Gbps effective. That is more than six times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for the OpenCL compute workloads where the Quadro excels. The memory clock also differs: 1,001 MHz on the GTX 950A versus 1,251 MHz on the Quadro P2200.

Rendering rates reflect these architectural advantages. The Quadro P2200 achieves 59.72 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 119.4 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s on the GTX 950A. FP32 compute is rated at 3.822 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950A. The Quadro also supports FP16 at 59.72 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 950A has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support differs as well. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the DirectX versions diverge: the GTX 950A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the Quadro can take advantage of more advanced DirectX 12 features, though neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins the compute-heavy workloads without contest. Its OpenCL score of 32,344 is 215% higher than the GTX 950A's 10,273. For any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, rendering, or simulation, the Quadro P2200 is the clear choice. Its 200.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput make it suited for tasks that move large data sets or require sustained arithmetic throughput.

The GTX 950A's advantages are more subtle. It holds a higher percentile ranking (48th versus 44th), which reflects its more consistent performance profile. Since it has only one recorded benchmark, its average score is not diluted by weaker DirectX results. The Quadro P2200's Passmark DirectX scores are notably low: 167 in DirectX 9, 45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, and 33 in DirectX 12. These are likely legacy or compatibility test results that do not represent the card's real gaming capability, but they do pull its average down. The GTX 950A, by contrast, has no recorded DirectX benchmarks, so it cannot be directly compared on those workloads.

For gaming specifically, the GTX 950A's Maxwell architecture and lower memory bandwidth suggest it would handle older titles adequately, but the data does not include gaming benchmarks. The Quadro P2200's Passmark G3D score of 9,364 is far higher than its DirectX sub-scores, indicating that its real-world graphics performance is substantially better than those individual API tests suggest. Its Passmark G2D score of 881 and GPU compute score of 3,921 round out a profile that favors professional visualization and compute over gaming.

The form factors reflect their intended use cases. The GTX 950A is an MXM Module with a portable-device-dependent display output, meaning it is designed for laptops and compact systems where power and space are constrained. The Quadro P2200 is a single-slot, 201 mm (7.9 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, built for workstation towers. The GTX 950A has no power connector and draws 75 W; the Quadro P2200 also has no power connector and draws 75 W, but its suggested PSU is 250 W, indicating it expects a more robust system power delivery.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the GTX 950A versus 16 nm for the Quadro P2200. Transistor count is 1,870 million versus 4,400 million, and die size is 148 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 22.0M per mm².

Clock speeds: base 993 MHz versus 1,000 MHz, boost 1,124 MHz versus 1,493 MHz, memory 1,001 MHz versus 1,251 MHz. Memory configuration: 2 GB DDR3 versus 5 GB GDDR5X, 128-bit versus 160-bit bus, 32.03 GB/s versus 200.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: 640 versus 1,280 shading units, 40 versus 80 TMUs, 16 versus 40 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.98 versus 59.72 GPixel/s, texture rate is 44.96 versus 119.4 GTexel/s, FP32 is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 3.822 TFLOPS. The Quadro has FP16 at 59.72 GFLOPS; the GTX 950A has none recorded.

Form factor: MXM Module versus single-slot, bus interface MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16, display outputs portable-device-dependent versus four DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the GTX 950A has none listed. Dimensions are available only for the Quadro: 201 mm length and 111 mm height. The GTX 950A has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates differ by more than four years: the GTX 950A launched on March 12, 2015, while the Quadro P2200 launched on June 9, 2019. The GTX 950A's predecessor is the GeForce 800A, and it has no successor. The Quadro P2200's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell, and its successor is Quadro Volta. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 68.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A's score of 10,273.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, while the GTX 950A has 32.03 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The Quadro P2200 uses a 16 nm process with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GTX 950A uses a 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Do both cards require external power connectors?

A: Yes, neither card has power connectors, and both have a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro P2200 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 950A has no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The GTX 950A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro P2200 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 201 mm by 111 mm with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.