NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 represent two distinct generations of GPU design from the same manufacturer. The GTX 960, built on the older Maxwell architecture, and the P2200, a professional Pascal product, are both end-of-life parts but occupy different performance tiers. The benchmark data shows a clear generational shift, with the Quadro P2200 delivering substantially higher compute performance, particularly in modern API workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is limited to two benchmark tests, and the results are lopsided. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins both tests, taking the head-to-head tally at 2-0. The most dramatic difference appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P2200 scores 31,351 against the GTX 960's 9,231. That is a delta of -70.6% from the perspective of the GTX 960, meaning the Quadro is roughly 3.4 times faster in this specific workload. This is a massive gap, showing that the Pascal architecture's improvements are not incremental but transformative for low-level API performance.

The second test, Geekbench OpenCL, also goes to the P2200, but with a smaller margin. The P2200 scores 32,344 while the GTX 960 manages 18,925, a delta of -41.5% for the GTX 960. While still a decisive victory for the Quadro, the OpenCL result shows the older card is relatively more competitive in this compute environment. This suggests that while the Maxwell GPU can handle general-purpose compute tasks, it falls behind significantly when the workload leverages the newer Vulkan API's optimized pathways.

Looking at the broader context, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The GTX 960 averages 9,273 points across all its tested workloads, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465, with an average score of 9,294, which is a mere 0.2% difference. The Quadro P2200, however, averages 8,686 points, placing it in the 44th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2, scoring 8,743, a 0.7% delta. Despite the P2200's dominant head-to-head wins, its overall average is lower than the GTX 960's. This is because the P2200's benchmark suite includes several low-score tests like Passmark DirectX 10 (45 points) and DirectX 12 (33 points), which drag down its aggregate, while the GTX 960's suite is composed of higher-scoring Geekbench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is significantly faster, scoring 31,351 compared to the GTX 960's 9,231. This represents a performance advantage of 70.6% for the Quadro P2200.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GeForce GTX 960 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,273, compared to the Quadro P2200's 8,686. This places the GTX 960 in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits in the 44th percentile.

Q: What is the most significant architectural difference between the two?

A: The most significant difference is the manufacturing process and architecture. The GTX 960 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm node, while the Quadro P2200 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm node. This allows the P2200 to pack more transistors (4,400 million vs 2,940 million) into a smaller die (200 mm² vs 228 mm²).

Q: Does the Quadro P2200 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the Quadro P2200 offers 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is considerably higher than the GTX 960's 112.2 GB/s. This is due to a combination of a wider 160-bit memory bus and faster GDDR5X memory running at 10 Gbps effective, compared to the GTX 960's 128-bit bus and 7 Gbps GDDR5.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a higher pixel rate at 59.72 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 960's 37.70 GPixel/s. This is driven by the P2200 having 40 ROPs versus the GTX 960's 32 ROPs.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GTX 960 is competitive?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960 scores 18,925. While the Quadro P2200 still wins with 32,344, the 41.5% deficit is far smaller than the 70.6% gap seen in the Vulkan test, indicating the GTX 960 performs relatively better in OpenCL compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide between these two GPUs is the shift from Maxwell 2.0 to Pascal. The GeForce GTX 960 is built on the GM206 chip using a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process. This node shrink is the primary driver of the performance difference, allowing the P2200 to house 4,400 million transistors in a 228 mm² die. In contrast, the GTX 960 contains only 2,940 million transistors on a larger 228 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the P2200 achieves 22.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 960 manages just 12.9M per mm².

The compute resources are also scaled up on the P2200. It features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 960, by comparison, has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This results in a significant theoretical throughput advantage for the Quadro, with 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the GTX 960's 2.413 TFLOPS. The texture rate is also higher on the P2200 at 119.4 GTexel/s, compared to 75.39 GTexel/s on the GTX 960.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 7 Gbps effective. The P2200 steps up to 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, running at 10 Gbps effective. This yields a bandwidth of 200.2 GB/s for the Quadro, nearly double the 112.2 GB/s of the GTX 960. The Quadro also supports a higher FP16 rate of 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) while the GTX 960's FP16 capability is not specified in the data. Display outputs differ as well, with the GTX 960 featuring a mix of DVI, HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the P2200 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for different use cases. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in modern APIs, the Quadro P2200 is the superior choice. The 70.6% lead in Vulkan performance and the 41.5% lead in OpenCL are decisive. The P2200 also offers significantly more memory bandwidth and a higher pixel rate, making it more capable for demanding professional workloads that rely on these metrics.

The GeForce GTX 960's only claim to the top spot is its higher average benchmark score of 9,273 versus 8,686. However, this is a statistical artifact of the different test suites used for each card. The GTX 960's suite is composed entirely of Geekbench tests, while the P2200 includes several Passmark tests with very low scores. In a direct head-to-head comparison, the GTX 960 does not win a single test. The GTX 960 also holds a slight edge in its nearest rival comparison, with a lower deltaPct to its closest competitor (-0.2%) compared to the P2200 (-0.7%), but this is a measure of market positioning rather than absolute performance.

Given the head-to-head results, the Quadro P2200 is the better performing GPU. Its architectural advantages in node size, transistor count, and memory subsystem translate directly into superior benchmark results. Users who require the fastest possible compute in Vulkan or OpenCL should choose the P2200. The GTX 960, while having a higher average score in its limited test set, is outclassed in every direct comparison. The P2200 is also a more efficient card, with a TDP of 75 W versus the GTX 960's 120 W, and it requires no external power connectors, fitting in a single-slot form factor.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, with all values taken directly from the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1127 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1493 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.2 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.70 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 75.39 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.413 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 120 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-01-21 | 2019-06-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not specified |

| Average Benchmark Score | 9273 | 8686 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 45 | 44 |