NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are both built on the same fundamental Maxwell architecture, yet they target completely different segments of the GPU market. The GTX 960A is a mobile-oriented graphics solution, while the K2200 is a professional workstation card. Benchmark results show the GTX 960A holds a 5% lead in the single head-to-head OpenCL test, scoring 11998 against the K2200’s 11431, but the data reveals a more nuanced picture when considering the full specification sheets.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960A wins decisively in raw compute performance as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 11998 places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, edging out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11960, 0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842, 1.3% delta). This indicates the 960A is positioned within striking distance of much more modern and expensive cards in compute workloads, which is remarkable for a part based on the older GM107 chip. The K2200, by contrast, scores 11431 in OpenCL and 10090 in Vulkan, with an average benchmark score of 10761 that lands it in the 49th percentile. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10804, meaning the K2200 actually trails that card by 0.4% in average performance.

The K2200 wins in the memory capacity category, which is crucial for certain professional workloads. It ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the GTX 960A’s 2 GB, and both run on a 128-bit bus with identical 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. For tasks like large texture sets, complex 3D scenes, or multi-monitor setups in CAD applications, the extra 2 GB of framebuffer can be the difference between smooth operation and constant swapping. The GTX 960A, with its smaller memory pool, is better suited for gaming at 1080p where 2 GB was standard for its era, but it lacks the headroom for professional datasets. The data also shows the K2200 has a lower TDP of 68 W versus 75 W for the 960A, making it more power-efficient per unit of work, though the performance gap in compute favors the 960A.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the GM107 chip, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². They share the same Maxwell architecture, which is notable because the K2200’s generation field lists "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" — a naming anomaly that suggests it was positioned as a successor to Kepler-era Quadro cards, but its actual silicon is Maxwell. The GTX 960A comes from the GeForce 900A generation, released on 2015-03-12, while the K2200 predates it by roughly eight months, launching on 2014-07-21.

The clock speeds differ, with the GTX 960A running at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost, compared to the K2200’s 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. This 51 MHz base and 52 MHz boost advantage translates directly to higher fill rates: the 960A achieves 18.82 GPixel/s pixel rate and 47.04 GTexel/s texture rate, while the K2200 manages 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s respectively. Both have identical core configurations — 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — so the performance delta comes entirely from clock speed. The FP32 compute also reflects this: 1.505 TFLOPS for the 960A versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the K2200.

Memory clock is identical at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), and both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus. However, the K2200 doubles the memory size to 4 GB. The bus interface differs significantly: the 960A uses MXM-B (3.0) and is an MXM Module form factor, designed for laptops and compact systems, while the K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height. Display outputs also diverge — the 960A’s are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation, while the K2200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 960A scores 11998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5% higher than the K2200’s 11431. The 960A also sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, above the K2200’s 49th percentile.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM107 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors and a 148 mm² die size. They share the same Maxwell architecture, though the K2200 is listed under a "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation name.

Q: How does memory capacity differ between the two?

A: The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 960A’s 2 GB. Both have a 128-bit bus and identical 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The K2200 has a lower TDP of 68 W compared to the GTX 960A’s 75 W. The K2200 also suggests a 250 W power supply, while the 960A has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: Only the K2200 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10090. The GTX 960A has no Vulkan benchmark data available in the fact pack, so no direct comparison can be made.

Q: Are there differences in physical form factor?

A: Yes. The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the K2200 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 202 mm by 111 mm.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory size: 2 GB on the GTX 960A versus 4 GB on the K2200, despite identical memory type, bus width, and bandwidth. Clock speeds favor the 960A, with a base of 1097 MHz and boost of 1176 MHz versus 1046 MHz and 1124 MHz on the K2200. This produces higher pixel and texture rates for the 960A (18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 compute (1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS).

Power profiles differ: the 960A draws 75 W with no power connectors, while the K2200 draws 68 W with no power connectors but lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The form factor is a major differentiator — the 960A is an MXM module with portable-dependent outputs, while the K2200 is a single-slot PCIe card with specific dimensions (202 mm length, 111 mm height) and fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2). Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates also differ, with the K2200 arriving on 2014-07-21 and the 960A on 2015-03-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 960A posts 11998 against the K2200’s 11431, a 5% delta in favor of the 960A. This is a significant margin for two cards with identical core configurations — the 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are the same, so the entire 567-point gap comes from the 960A’s higher clocks. The 960A’s advantage in absolute terms is 567 points, which is roughly the same as the difference between the K2200’s score and that of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10629, 1.2% delta).

Looking at percentile standings, the 960A’s 51st percentile places it in the top half of all GPUs ever benchmarked, while the K2200’s 49th percentile sits just below the median. The 960A’s nearest rival, the GTX 1080, scores 11960 — only 0.3% behind — which means the 960A is effectively matching a high-end card from a later generation in OpenCL compute. The K2200’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, scores 10804, which is actually 0.4% higher than the K2200’s average. This suggests the K2200 is slightly below its closest competitor, while the 960A is slightly above its nearest rival.

The K2200’s Vulkan score of 10090 offers an additional data point, but without a corresponding 960A Vulkan result, it cannot be compared directly. The K2200’s average benchmark score of 10761 pulls its aggregate down relative to its OpenCL score, indicating the Vulkan result is substantially weaker. This could be a driver maturity issue or an architectural quirk, but the data shows the K2200 performs better in OpenCL than in Vulkan by roughly 12%.

The Verdict

For pure compute throughput, the data clearly favors the GTX 960A. Its 5% OpenCL lead over the K2200, combined with its higher 51st percentile ranking and its proximity to the GTX 1080’s score, makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL. The 960A achieves this with 640 shading units and higher clocks, proving that clock speed can offset identical core counts. Anyone whose workload is compute-bound and who has access to an MXM slot should pick the 960A without hesitation.

The K2200’s case rests entirely on its 4 GB memory capacity. For professional applications that require large framebuffers — such as 3D rendering, video editing with high-resolution timelines, or multi-display CAD environments — the extra 2 GB can be more valuable than raw compute speed. The K2200 also offers fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) and a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 form factor, making it a drop-in solution for workstation towers, whereas the 960A’s MXM interface limits it to specific laptops or proprietary systems. The K2200’s lower 68 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU also make it easier to integrate into power-sensitive systems.

The verdict comes down to use case. If the workload fits within 2 GB of memory, the GTX 960A is objectively faster in compute and sits at a higher performance percentile. If memory capacity is the bottleneck, the K2200’s 4 GB framebuffer is an insurmountable advantage that no amount of clock speed can overcome. The data shows two cards with identical silicon but divergent destinies: one optimized for speed, the other for capacity. Both are end-of-life products, but their strengths remain relevant for legacy systems. For a mobile compute-focused build, choose the GTX 960A; for a workstation with memory-intensive professional loads, the K2200 is the only logical pick.