NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The GeForce MX350 and Quadro K2200 are two very different products that happen to land at nearly the same average benchmark score. The MX350 is a modern, low-power mobile chip built on a 14 nm process, while the K2200 is an older, higher-power desktop workstation card on 28 nm. The data shows a tie in overall wins, with each card taking one benchmark decisively. The MX350 wins the Vulkan test by a wide margin, while the K2200 dominates in OpenCL. Your choice should be dictated by the API your workload uses and the physical constraints of your system, not by overall average scores, which differ by only 1.1%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. If your primary workload leverages Vulkan, the GeForce MX350 is the stronger pick. It posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077, which is 29.6% higher than the K2200’s 10090. This is a substantial lead, suggesting the newer architecture handles modern graphics APIs much more efficiently. The MX350 also offers a major advantage in power consumption, drawing only 20 W compared to the K2200’s 68 W, making it the obvious choice for thin-and-light laptops or any system where thermal and power budgets are tight.

Conversely, if your software is built around OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 is the better performer. It scores 11431 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the MX350’s 8689 by 24%. This is a massive gap in the other direction. The K2200 also provides 4 GB of VRAM on a 128-bit bus, offering twice the memory capacity and significantly more bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s) than the MX350. For tasks that are memory-bound or rely on legacy OpenCL compute, the K2200 is the more capable tool, provided you can accommodate its larger footprint and power draw.

Given the equal win count (1 win each), the decision rests on your specific application. The MX350 is the modern, efficient choice for Vulkan-centric workloads and portable systems. The K2200 is the older workhorse for OpenCL-heavy tasks where memory capacity and bandwidth are critical, and where a single-slot desktop card with a 250 W suggested PSU is acceptable. The average benchmark scores (10883 for MX350, 10761 for K2200) are close, but they hide the complete divergence in API-specific performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant. The MX350 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP107S chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This newer process allows for a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. The K2200, in contrast, uses the older Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has a lower transistor density of 12.6M per mm², with 1,870 million transistors on a slightly larger 148 mm² die.

The MX350’s newer process node gives it a fundamental efficiency advantage. It achieves higher clock speeds (1354 MHz base, 1468 MHz boost) than the K2200 (1046 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) while consuming far less power. The MX350’s FP32 compute is also higher at 1.879 TFLOPS versus the K2200’s 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Both cards have 640 shading units, but the MX350 has fewer TMUs (32 vs 40) and the same number of ROPs (16). Interestingly, the MX350 supports FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the K2200 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The MX350 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the K2200 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. This gives the K2200 a bandwidth advantage (80.19 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s). The MX350 compensates with faster effective memory speed (7 Gbps vs 5 Gbps). The MX350 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K2200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), a notable feature gap for modern games or applications using advanced DX12 features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is a decisive victory for the Quadro K2200. The K2200 scores 11431, while the MX350 scores 8689. This represents a 24% delta in favor of the K2200. This result suggests that the K2200’s wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are more important for OpenCL workloads than the MX350’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The K2200’s 4 GB of VRAM also likely plays a role in handling larger datasets without swapping.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The MX350 scores 13077, which is 29.6% higher than the K2200’s 10090. This is a massive lead for the MX350. The Vulkan API benefits from the MX350’s modern Pascal architecture and its support for DirectX 12 (12_1), which often correlates with better low-level API performance. The K2200’s older Maxwell architecture, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) limitation, appears to hold it back in this newer API.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The MX350 has an average score of 10883, while the K2200 sits at 10761. The MX350 is 1.1% ahead of the K2200 in this metric. However, this average is misleading because it masks the 24% OpenCL deficit and the 29.6% Vulkan advantage. A workload that uses Vulkan will see a massive performance uplift on the MX350, while a workload that relies on OpenCL will see a similarly large uplift on the K2200.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: MX350 is 14 nm (Samsung), K2200 is 28 nm (TSMC).
• Transistors: MX350 has 3,300 million, K2200 has 1,870 million.
• Die Size: MX350 is 132 mm², K2200 is 148 mm².
• Transistor Density: MX350 has 25.0M / mm², K2200 has 12.6M / mm².
• Base Clock: MX350 is 1354 MHz, K2200 is 1046 MHz.
• Boost Clock: MX350 is 1468 MHz, K2200 is 1124 MHz.
• Memory Size: MX350 is 2 GB, K2200 is 4 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: MX350 is 64 bit, K2200 is 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: MX350 is 56.06 GB/s, K2200 is 80.19 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: MX350 is 7 Gbps effective, K2200 is 5 Gbps effective.
• TMUs: MX350 has 32, K2200 has 40.
• Pixel Rate: MX350 is 23.49 GPixel/s, K2200 is 17.98 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: MX350 is 46.98 GTexel/s, K2200 is 44.96 GTexel/s.
• FP32: MX350 is 1.879 TFLOPS, K2200 is 1,438.7 GFLOPS.
• FP16: MX350 is 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64), K2200 is null.
• TDP: MX350 is 20 W, K2200 is 68 W.
• Slot Width: MX350 is null, K2200 is Single-slot.
• Suggested PSU: MX350 is null, K2200 is 250 W.
• Bus Interface: MX350 is PCIe 3.0 x4, K2200 is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: MX350 is Portable Device Dependent, K2200 is 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX Support: MX350 is 12 (12_1), K2200 is 12 (11_0).
• Release Date: MX350 is 2020-02-09, K2200 is 2014-07-21.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce MX350 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 10883, compared to the Quadro K2200’s 10761. This puts the MX350 1.1% ahead in the overall average.

Q: Is the Quadro K2200 better for OpenCL workloads?

A: Yes, the data shows the K2200 scores 11431 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 24% higher than the MX350’s 8689. Its larger 4 GB VRAM and wider 128-bit bus likely contribute to this advantage.

Q: Is the GeForce MX350 better for Vulkan workloads?

A: Yes, the MX350 scores 13077 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 29.6% higher than the K2200’s 10090. Its newer Pascal architecture and DirectX 12 (12_1) support appear to give it a significant edge in this API.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors. The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, also requires no power connectors, but its suggested PSU is 250 W. The MX350 is far more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K2200 has more memory bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s, compared to the MX350’s 56.06 GB/s. This is due to the K2200’s 128-bit bus versus the MX350’s 64-bit bus, despite the MX350 having faster effective memory speed (7 Gbps vs 5 Gbps).

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both cards are listed as end-of-life products. The MX350 was released on 2020-02-09, while the K2200 was released on 2014-07-21.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX350 wins in scenarios that favor its modern architecture and low power draw. It is the clear choice for Vulkan-based applications, where its 29.6% lead over the K2200 is decisive. The MX350’s 20 W TDP makes it ideal for portable devices, as its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." It also holds advantages in raw compute metrics, with higher pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s), texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (1.879 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS). Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and FP16 also makes it more future-proof for modern software.

The Quadro K2200 wins in scenarios that prioritize memory capacity and bandwidth, as well as legacy OpenCL performance. Its 24% lead in OpenCL is its primary strength. The 4 GB of VRAM doubles the MX350’s capacity, which is critical for large datasets in compute tasks. The 128-bit bus provides 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, a 43% advantage over the MX350. The K2200 is a single-slot desktop card with fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a straightforward drop-in for workstation builds. Its higher TDP of 68 W and suggested 250 W PSU indicate it is designed for desktop systems where power is less constrained. For OpenCL-centric professional workloads, the K2200’s memory subsystem outweighs the MX350’s architectural advantages.