NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark tests for this pair: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins both, taking 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups. The GeForce GTX 960M does not win either test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 against the GTX 960M's 11,045. That is a 3.5% advantage for the Quadro. The margin is modest, and both cards land in a similar performance tier for compute workloads that use OpenCL.

The larger separation appears in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K2200 reaches 10,090, while the GTX 960M scores 8,245. The delta is 22.4%, a substantial gap. This suggests the Quadro's advantage grows significantly when the workload uses the Vulkan API, likely reflecting differences in how the two cards handle modern graphics API paths.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the Quadro K2200 averages 10,761, which places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 960M averages 9,645, sitting at the 46th percentile. The Quadro is ahead by roughly 1,100 points on average, consistent with its wins in both individual tests.

The nearest rival data adds context. The Quadro K2200's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 average, only 0.4% behind. The Quadro also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, 1.1% behind the Quadro) and beats the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, 1.2% ahead of the Quadro). For the GTX 960M, its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 average, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653) is 0.1% ahead of the GTX 960M, and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665) is 0.2% ahead. The gap between the two cards in the database is larger than the gaps each card has to its own nearest rivals, meaning the Quadro K2200 sits in a clearly higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. The Quadro K2200 and the GTX 960M both use the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Transistor count is identical at 1,870 million, and die size is the same at 148 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² for both.

The memory subsystems are also identical on paper. Each card has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock is 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective for both. Shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units match: 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on both cards.

Clock speeds differ slightly. The Quadro K2200 runs a base clock of 1046 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz. The GTX 960M runs higher: 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. That gives the GTX 960M a raw clock advantage of about 51 MHz at base and 52 MHz at boost. Yet the benchmark results do not reflect that clock advantage, which raises questions about how each card sustains clocks under real workloads.

Pixel rate and texture rate follow the clocks. The GTX 960M posts 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K2200 posts 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s. The GTX 960M is slightly ahead in both raw fill rates. FP32 compute tells a similar story: the GTX 960M reaches 1.505 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 960M is roughly 4.6% higher in theoretical FP32.

Power and form factor diverge. The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, a single-slot design, and no power connectors. The GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 960M is portable-device dependent. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 960M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The Quadro measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the GTX 960M has no recorded dimensions because it is a mobile module.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for both. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores. Neither has recorded FP16 performance.

Generation and release timing separate them. The Quadro K2200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation and was released on 2014-07-21. Its predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 960M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, released on 2015-03-12, with GeForce 800M as predecessor and GeForce 10 Mobile as successor. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins both recorded benchmarks, so the data does not show a single test where the GTX 960M comes out ahead. The Quadro's OpenCL win is narrow at 3.5%, suggesting the two are close in general compute. The Vulkan win is decisive at 22.4%, indicating a much larger gap in that API.

For workloads that rely on Vulkan, the Quadro K2200 is clearly the stronger card. The 22.4% delta is not a marginal difference; it separates the two into different performance classes for that test. The GTX 960M's higher clocks and fill rates do not translate into a Vulkan win, which implies the Quadro's driver or hardware path for Vulkan is more efficient.

For OpenCL, the difference is small enough that real-world results could vary by workload. A 3.5% gap is within run-to-run variance for many compute tasks. The GTX 960M's higher theoretical FP32 (1.505 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS) and higher texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s) do not overcome the Quadro's measured OpenCL score, but the margin is slim.

The GTX 960M does hold advantages in clock speed, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. In purely theoretical terms, it should be slightly faster. The database shows otherwise in practice, which suggests sustained clock behavior, thermal limits, or driver efficiency favors the Quadro. The GTX 960M's 75 W TDP in a mobile MXM form factor may limit sustained boost clocks in a way that a desktop single-slot card does not experience.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 as the stronger performer of the two. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (10,761 vs 9,645), and sits at a higher percentile (49th vs 46th). Its Vulkan advantage of 22.4% is the single largest margin in any comparison between the two cards.

The GTX 960M is not without merit. It runs higher clocks, has higher pixel and texture rates, and higher theoretical FP32. For users who value those specifications on paper, it appears competitive. But the measured results do not support that conclusion. The Quadro K2200 beats it in OpenCL by 3.5% and in Vulkan by 22.4%.

The choice depends on the workload. For Vulkan-centric applications, the Quadro K2200 is the only reasonable pick based on the data. For OpenCL, the two are close enough that other factors, such as form factor or driver support, could tip the decision. The Quadro is a single-slot desktop card with PCIe 2.0 x16 and fixed display outputs. The GTX 960M is an MXM module for portable devices, with no standalone dimensions and display outputs dependent on the host system.

There is no price information in the data for either card, so any cost-based comparison is not possible from the record. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K2200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, while the GTX 960M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. If the workload requires Vulkan performance, the Quadro K2200 wins by a wide margin. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy, the two are nearly interchangeable, with a slight edge to the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins with a score of 11,431 against the GTX 960M's 11,045, a 3.5% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Quadro K2200 scores 10,090 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 960M scores 8,245. The Quadro leads by 22.4%.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip?

A: Yes. Both use the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process by TSMC, with 1,870 million transistors and a 148 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 960M runs a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost of 1176 MHz. The Quadro K2200 runs 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K2200 averages 10,761 across all recorded tests, placing at the 49th percentile. The GTX 960M averages 9,645, placing at the 46th percentile.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M |

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

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | GeForce 900M |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 1097 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1176 MHz |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 18.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 47.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 68 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 202 mm length, 111 mm height | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 11,431 | 11,045 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 10,090 | 8,245 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 10,761 | 9,645 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 49 | 46 |

Fields not listed here are identical between the two cards: chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistors, die size, transistor density, memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, memory clock, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, API support, and production status.