NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a higher average benchmark score of 10761, compared to the GeForce GTX 960's 9273. The Quadro also ranks in the 49th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 960 sits in the 45th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce GTX 960 is substantially ahead in OpenCL, scoring 18925 versus the Quadro K2200's 11431. That is a 39.6% lead for the GTX 960 in this workload.

Q: Does the Quadro K2200 win anything in the head-to-head tests?

A: Yes, the Quadro K2200 wins the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 10090 against the GTX 960's 9231. That is a 9.3% advantage for the Quadro in Vulkan.

Q: What are the memory differences between these cards?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 960 has higher bandwidth at 112.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the Quadro.

Q: Which card requires more power connectors?

A: The GeForce GTX 960 needs a single 6-pin power connector and is a dual-slot card. The Quadro K2200 requires no power connectors and is single-slot.

Q: What are the release dates for these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2200 was released on 2014-07-21, and the GeForce GTX 960 came later on 2015-01-21. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA cards belong to different Maxwell generations. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip on the original Maxwell architecture, while the GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip on Maxwell 2.0. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon differs significantly in scale.

The GTX 960 packs 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, compared to 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die for the Quadro K2200. Transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.9M per mm² for the GTX 960 and 12.6M per mm² for the Quadro, so the performance gap comes from raw resources rather than design efficiency. The GTX 960 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K2200 offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Clock speeds also favor the GTX 960. It runs at a base of 1127 MHz and boosts to 1178 MHz, while the Quadro K2200 operates at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: the GTX 960 uses 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), and the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 960 achieves 112.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s for the Quadro.

The API support differs as well. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K2200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs: the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, and the Quadro K2200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Power and physical requirements are notably different. The GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, is dual-slot, and needs a 6-pin power connector. The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, is single-slot, and needs no power connectors. The GTX 960 is also longer at 241 mm, while the Quadro measures 202 mm.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between compute-heavy and API-specific workloads. If the primary task is OpenCL compute, the GeForce GTX 960 is the definitive choice. Its 18925 OpenCL score crushes the Quadro K2200's 11431, a 39.6% difference. For raw throughput metrics, the GTX 960 also dominates: 2.413 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS, 75.39 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s, and 37.70 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s.

However, the Quadro K2200 wins in Vulkan, scoring 10090 against 9231, a 9.3% margin. It also offers twice the memory capacity at 4 GB, which matters for larger datasets. The Quadro's lower power draw of 68 W and single-slot design make it easier to integrate into workstations with tight spatial or thermal constraints. Its lack of power connectors simplifies installation.

Pick the GTX 960 for OpenCL-heavy tasks, higher pixel and texture throughput, and if the system can accommodate a dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU. Pick the Quadro K2200 for Vulkan workloads, scenarios needing more than 2 GB of VRAM, and environments where a 68 W single-slot card with no external power is preferable. The GTX 960 also has a higher average benchmark score, but the Quadro's higher percentile ranking (49th versus 45th) reflects its stronger position relative to the full GPU landscape.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every core specification. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip on Maxwell 2.0, while the Quadro K2200 uses GM107 on the original Maxwell. The GTX 960 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die; the Quadro has 1,870 million on 148 mm².

Clock speeds favor the GTX 960: 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, versus 1046 MHz and 1124 MHz for the Quadro. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 960 at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory size goes the other way: the Quadro has 4 GB, the GTX 960 has 2 GB. Bus width is identical at 128 bit, but bandwidth favors the GTX 960 at 112.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

The GTX 960 has more of every compute unit: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 640, 40, and 16 for the Quadro. Pixel rate is 37.70 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 75.39 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ significantly. The GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP, is dual-slot, needs a 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Quadro has a 68 W TDP, is single-slot, needs no connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2; the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 960 is 241 mm long; the Quadro is 202 mm.

DirectX support differs: the GTX 960 supports 12 (12_1), the Quadro supports 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 960 launched with an MSRP of 199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head benchmarks split exactly one win each. The GeForce GTX 960 takes OpenCL with a score of 18925 against the Quadro K2200's 11431, a delta of -39.6% from the Quadro's perspective. That is a massive margin, nearly 40% faster in OpenCL compute. The Quadro K2200 answers in Vulkan, scoring 10090 against 9231, a 9.3% advantage.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Quadro's average score of 10761 places it slightly above the GeForce GTX 465 (9294, delta -0.2%), the GTX 850M (9302, -0.3%), and the Radeon R7 M380 (9313, -0.4%), while trailing the Radeon Vega 8 (9221, 0.6%). The GTX 960's average of 9273 puts it just behind the Radeon Pro 450 (10804, -0.4% delta from the Quadro's perspective) and the GeForce MX350 (10883, -1.1%), but ahead of the Radeon RX 6600S (10629, 1.2%).

The GTX 960's OpenCL win is by far the largest delta in the entire comparison. The Quadro's Vulkan win is more modest but still meaningful. In terms of raw compute rates, the GTX 960 leads in FP32, texture fill, and pixel fill by margins ranging from roughly 67% to 110%. The Quadro counters with a 100% memory capacity advantage and a lower power footprint.

Where Each One Wins

GeForce GTX 960 wins in: OpenCL compute by a 39.6% margin. It also wins on raw throughput metrics: 2.413 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS, 75.39 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s, and 37.70 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. Higher memory bandwidth (112.2 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) and faster clocks (1127 MHz base versus 1046 MHz) reinforce its lead in compute-heavy tasks. It has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a newer feature level than the Quadro's 11_0. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the bus bandwidth of the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16. It has more display outputs, including HDMI 2.0.

Quadro K2200 wins in: Vulkan performance by 9.3%. It has twice the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which is critical for datasets that exceed the GTX 960's limit. It draws 68 W versus 120 W, and requires no power connectors, making it far easier to install in pre-existing systems. It is single-slot and shorter at 202 mm versus 241 mm. Its 250 W suggested PSU is more forgiving than the GTX 960's 300 W requirement. It also has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 49th versus 45th, and a higher average benchmark score of 10761 versus 9273, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

The choice hinges on workload. OpenCL compute and raw throughput favor the GTX 960 decisively. Vulkan tasks and memory-heavy workloads favor the Quadro K2200. Systems with power or space constraints will find the Quadro's 68 W single-slot design far more accommodating.