NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive margin in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 across every recorded test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 against the GeForce GTX 960M's 11,045, a difference of 65.9% in favor of the Quadro. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro P2200 reaches 31,351 while the GTX 960M manages 8,245, a 73.7% lead for the Quadro. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

The GeForce GTX 960M records no wins in any head-to-head comparison. The Quadro P2200 wins both available tests. The average benchmark score tells a similar story, though with a smaller spread: the GTX 960M averages 9,645 across its two recorded tests, while the Quadro P2200 averages 8,686 across nine tests, a figure pulled down by its low DirectX legacy scores. That said, the two GPUs occupy similar percentile positions overall: the GTX 960M sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, the Quadro P2200 at the 44th.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize these numbers. The GTX 960M's average score of 9,645 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637) and 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 by 0.2% and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 by 0.7%. The Quadro P2200's average of 8,686 puts it 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746), while it leads the AMD FirePro W5170M by 1.1% and the Intel Arc A380 by 1.5%.

What stands out is the discrepancy between the Geekbench results and the PassMark results for the Quadro P2200. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are exceptionally strong, but its PassMark DirectX 9 score is 167, DirectX 10 is 45, DirectX 11 is 70, and DirectX 12 is 33. The PassMark G3D score of 9,364 and GPU compute score of 3,921 are more respectable, but the legacy DirectX results drag the average down. This suggests the Quadro P2200 is optimized for compute and modern APIs rather than older DirectX workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Quadro P2200 wins in every compute-oriented test. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,344 is nearly three times the GTX 960M's 11,045. For anyone running OpenCL workloads, whether that is video encoding, physics simulation, or scientific computing, the Quadro P2200 is the obvious choice. Its Vulkan performance is even more dominant: 31,351 versus 8,245, a 73.7% advantage. Vulkan-based games and applications will see substantial gains.

The GTX 960M, by contrast, has no recorded wins. Its only benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, and it loses both by wide margins. The data does not show any workload where the GTX 960M comes out ahead. That said, the GTX 960M is a mobile part, designed for laptops, while the Quadro P2200 is a desktop workstation card. The GTX 960M's 75 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it suitable for portable systems, but the performance data does not favor it in any measured category.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro P2200's PassMark scores are low, but the GTX 960M has no comparable PassMark data in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible. The Quadro P2200's DirectX 9 score of 167 and DirectX 10 score of 45 suggest it is not built for older games or applications that rely on those APIs. The GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), giving the Quadro a higher feature level.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 16 nm process. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 16 nm allows the Quadro P2200 to pack 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, compared to the GTX 960M's 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density rises from 12.6M per mm² on the GTX 960M to 22.0M per mm² on the Quadro P2200.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is exactly double the shading units and TMUs, and 2.5 times the ROPs. The Quadro P2200's pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s on the GTX 960M, and its texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells the same story: the Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 960M manages 1.505 TFLOPS.

Memory configurations also differ. The GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, with 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The Quadro P2200's memory bandwidth is 2.5 times higher, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Both cards have the same TDP of 75 W, but the Quadro P2200 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 201 mm (7.9 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 960M is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The Quadro P2200 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The API support differs in DirectX version: the GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro P2200 also has a recorded FP16 performance of 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 960M has no FP16 data.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Quadro P2200 is the stronger GPU in every measured benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 65.9% higher, and its Vulkan score is 73.7% higher. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro P2200 is the clear pick. Its 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 200.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 5 GB of GDDR5X memory make it a capable workstation card for compute-heavy tasks.

The GTX 960M, with its 1.505 TFLOPS and 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, is a mobile part from an older generation. Its only advantages are its MXM form factor and lower complexity. But the benchmark data shows no scenario where it beats the Quadro P2200. The GTX 960M's percentile ranking of 46 is slightly higher than the Quadro P2200's 44, but that is due to the Quadro's low PassMark legacy scores, not its modern compute performance.

Who should pick the Quadro P2200? Anyone running OpenCL applications, Vulkan-based software, or modern DirectX 12 workloads. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. Its single-slot design and no power connector requirement mean it fits into standard workstations easily.

Who should pick the GTX 960M? The data does not support choosing it over the Quadro P2200 for raw performance. However, if the requirement is a mobile MXM module for a laptop, the GTX 960M is the only one of the two that fits that form factor. The Quadro P2200 is a desktop card and cannot be used in a laptop. For desktop use, the Quadro P2200 wins outright.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, which is 65.9% higher than the GeForce GTX 960M's 11,045.

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

A: The Quadro P2200 scores 31,351 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 960M scores 8,245, a 73.7% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus. The GTX 960M has 80.19 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards have the same power draw?

A: Yes, both have a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro P2200 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 960M is an MXM module with no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card by average score?

A: The GTX 960M's average score of 9,645 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637) and 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653). The Quadro P2200's average of 8,686 is 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595).

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

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

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 200 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 1493 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 40 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.505 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |

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

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

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

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

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

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

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Quadro Volta |