GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M represent two very different eras of NVIDIA's mobile and workstation GPU lineup. The P2200, a Pascal-generation workstation card from 2019, is built on a 16 nm process with a GP106 chip, while the GTX 950M, a Maxwell-generation mobile GPU from 2015, uses a 28 nm process with a GM107 chip. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the P2200 winning both head-to-head tests by margins of 231.9% and 380.5%, but the story is more nuanced than raw speed alone. The data reveals that these are not just different performance tiers, but fundamentally different products aimed at entirely different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 is the clear winner in every benchmark category where both cards were tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32,344 versus the GTX 950M's 9,745, a 231.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically to 380.5%, with the P2200 scoring 31,351 against the GTX 950M's 6,525. This suggests that the P2200's architecture is significantly more efficient at handling compute workloads, particularly those that leverage Vulkan's modern API features.

The GTX 950M has no benchmark wins in this comparison. However, its role as a mobile integrated GPU (IGP) means it serves a different purpose entirely. The GTX 950M's 4 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, which is adequate for laptop gaming at modest settings but far from the P2200's workstation-class memory subsystem. The P2200's 5 GB GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus provides 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, a 7x advantage that directly translates to its compute performance superiority.

The P2200 also holds an edge in raw specification counts: 1,280 shading units versus 640, 80 TMUs versus 40, and 40 ROPs versus 16. These double-to-more-than-double resource counts explain why the P2200 achieves 3.822 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the GTX 950M's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The P2200's pixel rate of 59.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 119.4 GTexel/s dwarf the GTX 950M's 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The P2200 uses the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process, while the GTX 950M uses the older Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. This process shrink allows the P2200 to pack 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The GTX 950M, by contrast, contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm².

The memory configurations could hardly be more different. The P2200 features 5 GB of GDDR5X memory running at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, delivering 200.2 GB/s bandwidth over a 160-bit bus. The GTX 950M uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, achieving only 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. This 7x bandwidth difference is one of the most telling architectural contrasts, as it directly impacts compute-heavy workloads that require large data transfers.

API support also differs. While both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, the P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the GTX 950M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support Vulkan 1.4, but the P2200's higher-tier DirectX feature level suggests better compatibility with modern graphics features. The P2200 also supports FP16 compute at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 950M has no listed FP16 support, further highlighting the P2200's compute-oriented design.

The P2200 is a single-slot workstation card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no power connectors, drawing 75 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950M is an IGP with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, also drawing 75 W but with no suggested PSU rating, reflecting its laptop integration. The P2200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface while the GTX 950M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, another indicator of the P2200's workstation-class data throughput requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks paint a stark picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32,344 against the GTX 950M's 9,745, a delta of 231.9%. This is not merely a linear scaling of the 2x shading unit advantage; the P2200 achieves more than 3.3x the performance despite having only 2x the cores. This suggests architectural efficiency gains in Pascal over Maxwell, particularly in compute scheduling and memory access patterns.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The P2200 scores 31,351 versus the GTX 950M's 6,525, a 380.5% delta. Vulkan is a lower-level API that benefits from efficient hardware utilization, and the P2200's newer architecture clearly exploits this better. The almost 5x performance gap in Vulkan versus the 3.3x gap in OpenCL indicates that the P2200's architectural improvements are more pronounced in modern, low-overhead APIs.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the P2200's average benchmark score is 8,686, placing it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950M averages 8,135 at the 42nd percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, the average scores are closer, suggesting that other benchmarks in the database include workloads where the GTX 950M's characteristics are less disadvantageous. The P2200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (avgScore 8,743, deltaPct -0.7), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avgScore 8,746, deltaPct -0.7), the AMD FirePro W5170M (avgScore 8,595, deltaPct 1.1), and the Intel Arc A380 (avgScore 8,558, deltaPct 1.5). The GTX 950M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (avgScore 8,129, deltaPct 0.1), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (avgScore 8,167, deltaPct -0.4), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (avgScore 8,099, deltaPct 0.4), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 (avgScore 8,080, deltaPct 0.7).

FAQ

Q: Which card has better compute performance?

A: The Quadro P2200 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 32,344 versus the GTX 950M's 9,745, a 231.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P2200 scores 31,351 against 6,525, a 380.5% lead.

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

A: The P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950M has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200's bandwidth is nearly 7x higher.

Q: Are these cards comparable in power consumption?

A: Both have a 75 W TDP, but the P2200 is a single-slot workstation card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 950M is an IGP with no suggested PSU rating.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the GTX 950M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support Vulkan 1.4, and only the P2200 has FP16 support.

Q: How do their production timelines differ?

A: The GTX 950M was released on 2015-03-12 as part of the GeForce 900M generation, succeeding GeForce 800M and preceding GeForce 10 Mobile. The P2200 was released on 2019-06-09 in the Quadro Pascal generation, succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta.

Q: Which card has better raw specifications?

A: The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, versus the GTX 950M's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P2200 also achieves 3.822 TFLOPS FP32 versus the GTX 950M's 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data unambiguously favors the Quadro P2200 for any compute-intensive or modern-graphics workload. Its 231.9% OpenCL advantage and 380.5% Vulkan advantage are not marginal improvements; they represent generational leaps in architecture, memory bandwidth, and compute capability. The P2200's 200.2 GB/s bandwidth versus the GTX 950M's 28.80 GB/s, combined with 2x shading units and 2.66x FP32 performance, makes it the obvious choice for professional applications, CAD, scientific computing, or any task that leverages GPU compute.

The GTX 950M's role is fundamentally different. As an IGP designed for laptops, its 75 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs target the mobile gaming and general-purpose segment. Its 4 GB DDR3 memory and 1,438.7 GFLOPS performance were adequate for its 2015-era market, but the data shows it is outclassed by the P2200 in every measurable way. The GTX 950M's average benchmark score of 8,135 is only 6.3% below the P2200's 8,686, but this aggregate metric obscures the massive deltas in modern API tests.

For users choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward based on the data: the P2200 is the superior performer in every benchmark category. The GTX 950M's only advantage is its form factor as an IGP for mobile devices, which is a system-integration consideration rather than a performance one. The P2200's 44th percentile versus the GTX 950M's 42nd percentile ranking further confirms that even in the broader GPU landscape, the P2200 holds a higher position, despite both being mid-pack performers overall.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 160 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 40 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 75 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2019-06-09 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 10 Mobile |