NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, targeting different workloads despite overlapping performance envelopes. The data shows a clear split: the GTX 980 wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks with 6 victories, while the Quadro P2200 secures 3 wins, primarily in API-specific and 2D-oriented tests. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architectural differences, and the practical implications for each card's intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Quadro P2200 comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 31,351 against the GTX 980's 22,543, a 39.1% advantage. This is a substantial margin, suggesting the Pascal architecture's Vulkan implementation is significantly more efficient than Maxwell 2.0's, and it positions the P2200 as the stronger choice for modern, low-overhead graphics APIs.

The GTX 980, however, dominates in the traditional DirectX and compute workloads. Its largest win is in Passmark DirectX 12, scoring 46 versus the P2200's 33, a 28.3% delta. The 980 also leads in Passmark DirectX 11 (83 vs 70, 15.7% ahead) and DirectX 10 (53 vs 45, 15.1% ahead). These results indicate that for legacy and current-generation DirectX titles, the 980's higher raw throughput—driven by 2,048 shading units and 4.981 TFLOPS FP32 performance—translates into tangible performance gains.

In the overall Passmark G3D test, the GTX 980 scores 11,095 against the P2200's 9,364, a 15.6% advantage. This aggregate metric reflects the 980's superiority in general 3D rendering tasks. Similarly, in Passmark GPU Compute, the 980 posts 4,753 versus the P2200's 3,921, a 17.5% lead, confirming its edge in parallel compute workloads.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a tighter race, with the GTX 980 winning 34,676 to 32,344, a 6.7% margin. This is the closest of the 980's victories, suggesting that while the 980 has more raw compute horsepower, the P2200's architecture is more efficient per unit of work in certain computational contexts.

The P2200's remaining wins are narrower but notable. In Passmark DirectX 9, it scores 167 to the 980's 164, a 1.8% edge—a marginal victory that suggests near-parity in legacy API workloads. The P2200 also wins Passmark G2D decisively, scoring 881 to 792, an 11.2% advantage, indicating superior 2D rendering and desktop composition performance.

Looking at the broader benchmark standings, the P2200 holds a 44th percentile ranking across all GPUs, while the GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are close—8,686 for the P2200 and 8,167 for the 980—but the P2200's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 and RTX 3050 A Mobile, both within 0.7% of its score, whereas the 980's rivals are lower-tier mobile parts like the GTX 950M and Radeon R9 M360, within 1.1%. This indicates that the P2200 competes in a slightly higher performance tier on average, despite losing the majority of direct comparisons.

FAQ

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

A: The Quadro P2200 is significantly faster, scoring 31,351 versus the GTX 980's 22,543, a 39.1% advantage. This suggests the P2200's Pascal architecture handles Vulkan workloads far more efficiently.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The biggest delta is in Passmark DirectX 12, where the GTX 980 beats the P2200 by 28.3% (46 vs 33). The second-largest is the P2200's 39.1% lead in Vulkan, though that is a win for the P2200.

Q: How do the cards compare in overall 3D performance?

A: The GTX 980 leads in the Passmark G3D test with 11,095 points versus the P2200's 9,364, a 15.6% advantage. This indicates the 980 is stronger for general 3D rendering tasks.

Q: Does the Quadro P2200 win any compute benchmarks?

A: No, the P2200 loses the Passmark GPU Compute test, scoring 3,921 against the GTX 980's 4,753, a 17.5% deficit. The 980 also wins Geekbench OpenCL by 6.7% (34,676 vs 32,344).

Q: Is there any test where the P2200 wins by a large margin?

A: Yes, the P2200 wins Geekbench Vulkan by 39.1% and Passmark G2D by 11.2%. These are its two most decisive victories.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The P2200 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,686 compared to the GTX 980's 8,167, despite losing most direct head-to-head tests. This reflects its stronger performance in specific workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the GeForce GTX 980 is the superior card for raw 3D rendering and compute performance, winning the majority of head-to-head tests, including a 15.6% lead in Passmark G3D and a 17.5% lead in GPU Compute. Its higher shading unit count (2,048 vs 1,280) and FP32 throughput (4.981 TFLOPS vs 3.822 TFLOPS) provide a tangible advantage in traditional graphics and parallel workloads. For users running DirectX 10, 11, or 12 applications, the 980 is decisively faster, with leads ranging from 15.1% to 28.3%.

Conversely, the Quadro P2200 is the better choice for Vulkan-based workloads, where its 39.1% lead is substantial, and for 2D desktop tasks, where its 11.2% G2D advantage indicates smoother composition and display output. Its lower power draw and single-slot form factor are also notable, though these are qualitative advantages not reflected in the benchmark scores. The P2200's higher average benchmark score (8,686 vs 8,167) and better percentile ranking (44th vs 43rd) suggest that its wins, while fewer, come in areas that contribute to overall system responsiveness.

Users prioritizing raw frame rates in DirectX games or general compute should choose the GTX 980. Users working with Vulkan applications, 2D-heavy workflows, or requiring a more compact, power-efficient solution should select the Quadro P2200. The GTX 980's launch MSRP was 549 USD, though both cards are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ fundamentally in their memory and power configurations. The Quadro P2200 features 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 980 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 224.4 GB/s. Despite the 980's higher bandwidth, the P2200's newer memory type and larger capacity offer advantages in specific workloads.

The GTX 980 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1216 MHz, while the P2200 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1493 MHz boost. The P2200's higher boost clock partially compensates for its lower base clock, but the 980's higher base clock ensures more consistent performance under sustained loads.

Power consumption is a major differentiator: the P2200 has a TDP of 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 980 draws 165 W, requires 2x 6-pin connectors, and needs a 450 W PSU. The P2200 is also single-slot (201 mm long) versus the 980's dual-slot design (267 mm long), making it far more suitable for compact or multi-GPU professional workstations.

Display outputs differ significantly: the P2200 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 980 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The P2200's newer DisplayPort standard supports higher resolutions and refresh rates.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational: the P2200 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The P2200's smaller, denser process (22.0M transistors per mm² vs 13.1M) allows for better efficiency per transistor.

The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, while the GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This gives the 980 significantly higher pixel rate (77.82 GPixel/s vs 59.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (155.6 GTexel/s vs 119.4 GTexel/s). The P2200's FP16 performance is listed at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 980 has no listed FP16 capability, suggesting the P2200 has better support for half-precision workloads.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with matching PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The P2200's Pascal architecture is a generation newer than Maxwell 2.0, which explains its superior Vulkan performance and newer display output standards.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 980 is the clear winner in gaming and general 3D rendering. Its Passmark G3D score of 11,095 (15.6% ahead) and DirectX 11/12 leads of 15.7% and 28.3% respectively make it the stronger choice for DirectX-based applications, including most PC games. Its GPU Compute score of 4,753 (17.5% ahead) also favors it for general-purpose parallel processing tasks like video encoding or scientific simulations.

The Quadro P2200 wins in Vulkan-centric workloads, where its 39.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive. This makes it the better choice for modern applications built on Vulkan, such as certain CAD tools, professional renderers, or Linux-based graphics stacks. Its 11.2% lead in Passmark G2D also makes it superior for 2D-heavy workflows like desktop publishing, UI design, or multi-monitor productivity setups.

The P2200 also wins in legacy DirectX 9 by a narrow 1.8% margin, indicating near-parity in older applications. Its higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking suggest that for mixed workloads, it may provide a more balanced experience overall. The GTX 980's wins are larger in magnitude but concentrated in traditional graphics, while the P2200's wins are smaller but cover emerging API and 2D use cases.