NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a higher average benchmark score of 10761, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK's average of 9474. The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX TITAN BLACK is at the 46th percentile.

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

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX TITAN BLACK scores 27218, which is 58% higher than the Quadro K2200's 11431. The TITAN BLACK wins this test decisively.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK offers 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro K2200 provides 80.19 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK's memory bus is 384-bit, versus 128-bit on the Quadro.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK has 2880 shading units, compared to 640 on the Quadro K2200. This is a 4.5x difference in raw shader count.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The Quadro K2200 uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses Kepler (chip GK110B). Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the power connector requirement for each?

A: The Quadro K2200 requires no power connectors and has a 68 W TDP. The GTX TITAN BLACK needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a 250 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA cards represent distinct architectural generations despite sharing the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses the older Kepler design with the GK110B chip.

Transistor counts reveal the scale difference: the GK110B packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the GM107 contains 1,870 million on a 148 mm² die. Both achieve the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm², indicating similar manufacturing maturity. The TITAN BLACK's die is nearly four times larger, which explains its substantially higher resource counts.

The Quadro K2200's Maxwell architecture brings a newer feature set, including Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX TITAN BLACK, being Kepler-based, supports DirectX 12 (11_1) but only Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, so driver-level API coverage is similar for OpenGL workloads.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Quadro K2200 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the TITAN BLACK uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB. This bus width difference drives the massive bandwidth gap: 336.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK also runs its memory at 7 Gbps effective, versus 5 Gbps on the Quadro.

Compute resource distribution is heavily skewed toward the TITAN BLACK. The Kepler chip has 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Maxwell chip has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These numbers translate to theoretical peak rates of 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 and 235.2 GTexel/s for the TITAN BLACK, versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS and 44.96 GTexel/s for the Quadro K2200.

Power delivery reflects the performance gap. The Quadro K2200 draws 68 W and needs no external power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX TITAN BLACK draws 250 W, requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and recommends a 600 W PSU. Physical dimensions also differ: the Quadro is 202 mm long and single-slot, while the TITAN BLACK is 267 mm long, dual-slot, and 38 mm wide.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This affects host transfer bandwidth but is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck in compute-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX TITAN BLACK wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. Its advantage is substantial in both cases, driven by the massive difference in compute resources and memory bandwidth.

The Quadro K2200 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, its higher average benchmark score of 10761 versus 9474 indicates that across a broader set of tests, the Quadro performs more consistently relative to its peers. The TITAN BLACK's average is dragged down by low Passmark scores in DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests, which range from 34 to 73.

For professional workstation use, the Quadro K2200's Maxwell architecture and newer Vulkan support (1.4) may be more relevant for modern API adoption. Its lower power draw of 68 W and single-slot design make it suitable for dense workstation builds without power constraints. The card also requires no external power connectors, simplifying installation.

The GTX TITAN BLACK is clearly the compute powerhouse. Its 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for heavy graphics workloads, large datasets, or GPU compute tasks that can utilize its 6 GB frame buffer. The 2880 shading units provide raw throughput that the Quadro cannot match.

In terms of API coverage, the Quadro K2200 has newer Vulkan support at version 1.4, while the TITAN BLACK is limited to 1.2.175. DirectX support is similar, with the TITAN BLACK at 12 (11_1) and the Quadro at 12 (11_0). The Quadro's Maxwell generation also means better power efficiency per transistor, though this is not directly measured in the benchmark data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The Quadro K2200 uses the Maxwell architecture with chip GM107, while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses Kepler with chip GK110B. Transistor counts are 1,870 million versus 7,080 million, and die sizes are 148 mm² versus 561 mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The Quadro runs at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the TITAN BLACK runs at 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective on the Quadro, versus 1750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective on the TITAN BLACK.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the TITAN BLACK has 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s, a 4.2x difference.

Compute units: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the Quadro; 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs on the TITAN BLACK. Pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s versus 58.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 44.96 GTexel/s versus 235.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 5.645 TFLOPS.

Power and cooling: 68 W TDP, single-slot, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU for the Quadro; 250 W TDP, dual-slot, 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, 600 W suggested PSU for the TITAN BLACK.

Interfaces: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2; the TITAN BLACK has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical dimensions: the Quadro is 202 mm long and 111 mm high; the TITAN BLACK is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 38 mm wide.

Release dates differ by five months: the TITAN BLACK launched on 2014-02-17, while the Quadro K2200 launched on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life. The TITAN BLACK had a launch MSRP of 999 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data includes two Geekbench tests, and the GTX TITAN BLACK wins both. The OpenCL test shows the TITAN BLACK scoring 27218 against the Quadro K2200's 11431, a delta of 58% in favor of the TITAN BLACK. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the TITAN BLACK has 4.5x more shading units and 4.2x more memory bandwidth, though the clock speed advantage of the Quadro (1046 MHz base versus 889 MHz) narrows the gap slightly.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger margin. The TITAN BLACK scores 29561, while the Quadro K2200 scores 10090, a 65.9% difference. This is notable because the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4 while the TITAN BLACK only supports 1.2.175. Despite the older API version, the TITAN BLACK's hardware resources dominate the newer but smaller Maxwell chip.

The Quadro K2200's average benchmark score of 10761 is higher than the TITAN BLACK's 9474, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This discrepancy comes from the TITAN BLACK's Passmark results, which are very low in DirectX 10 (47), DirectX 11 (73), and DirectX 12 (34) tests. These scores pull its average down, while the Quadro's two Geekbench scores are both above 10000.

In the nearest rival comparisons, the Quadro K2200 is closest to the AMD Radeon Pro 450, with a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Quadro scores essentially the same. The TITAN BLACK is closest to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760, with a delta of 0.2%. This places the two cards in very different performance tiers relative to their peers: the Quadro competes with mid-range mobile and entry desktop GPUs, while the TITAN BLACK sits near desktop GTX 760-class performance in the aggregate.

The TITAN BLACK's best result is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 29561, which is 2.9x higher than its nearest rival average. Its Passmark G3D score of 9184 is also strong, though below its OpenCL and Vulkan results. The Quadro K2200 has no Passmark results recorded, so its aggregate is based solely on the two Geekbench tests.

For compute-heavy workloads using OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX TITAN BLACK is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its 58% OpenCL advantage and 65.9% Vulkan advantage are decisive. For users who prioritize newer API support or lower power consumption, the Quadro K2200 offers a 68 W TDP and Vulkan 1.4, but it cannot match the TITAN BLACK's raw throughput in any measured test.