GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA GRID K2 are both end-of-life workstation cards, but they target completely different eras and workloads. The P2200 is a modern, efficient Pascal-based professional GPU, while the K2 is a Kepler-based virtualization card from 2013. Benchmark data shows the P2200 is the clear performance leader, but the K2 has a unique place in server environments that the P2200 cannot fill.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is emphatically one-sided. The Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 points, while the GRID K2 manages just 10,602 points. This translates to a 205.1% advantage for the P2200, meaning it delivers more than three times the compute performance of the K2 in this workload. There is no benchmark where the GRID K2 comes out ahead; the head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the P2200 and 0 for the K2.

This massive gap is reflected in their average benchmark scores. The P2200 has an average score of 8,686 across all its tested benchmarks, while the K2 sits at 8,080. While the average score difference is a modest 7.5%, the OpenCL result shows the true compute potential of the newer card. The P2200’s average is buoyed by strong showings in other tests, including a Passmark G3D score of 9,364 and a Passmark G2D score of 881. The K2’s average is based on just two benchmarks: the aforementioned OpenCL score and a Geekbench Metal score of 5,557, which the P2200 cannot run due to its lack of Metal support.

Looking at the rival landscape, the P2200 sits in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitors being the GeForce GTX 460 v2 and RTX 3050 A Mobile, both within 0.7% of its score. The GRID K2, in contrast, is in the 42nd percentile, and its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, which is 0.2% behind. These percentile rankings place both cards in the mid-range of the GPU spectrum, but the P2200’s raw compute advantage is undeniable.

The P2200’s Passmark DirectX results show a peculiar pattern: it scores 167 in DirectX 9, 70 in DirectX 11, 45 in DirectX 10, and 33 in DirectX 12. The K2 has no Passmark results, so no direct comparison is possible on those APIs. However, the P2200’s OpenCL score is the definitive metric here, and it shows a card that is dramatically faster than its older counterpart.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is significantly faster, scoring 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the GRID K2’s 10,602. That is a 205.1% advantage for the P2200.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any benchmark where it beats the P2200?

A: No. In the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the P2200 wins outright. The K2 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 5,557, but the P2200 does not support Metal, so no comparison is possible.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro P2200 has an average benchmark score of 8,686, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080. The P2200’s average is pulled up by strong Passmark results, whereas the K2’s is based on only two Geekbench tests.

Q: How do these cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The P2200 is in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the GRID K2 is in the 42nd percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the P2200 is slightly higher.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The P2200 has a bandwidth of 200.2 GB/s, which is higher than the GRID K2’s 160.0 GB/s. The P2200 also uses a newer GDDR5X memory type.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any display outputs?

A: No, the GRID K2 has no display outputs. It is designed for server-side virtualization, whereas the P2200 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for direct display connection.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures that are six years apart in release. The Quadro P2200 uses the Pascal architecture with a GP106 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². In contrast, the GRID K2 uses the Kepler architecture with a GK104 chip, built on an older 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a lower transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

The P2200’s newer process node and higher density give it a clear efficiency advantage, but the architectural differences run deeper. The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 render output units (ROPs). The K2 has more shading units at 1,536, and more TMUs at 128, but fewer ROPs at 32. Despite having more shaders, the K2’s older Kepler design is far less efficient per clock. The P2200’s boost clock is 1,493 MHz, while the K2’s clocks are not listed, but its pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s are far below the P2200’s 59.72 GPixel/s and 119.4 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but only achieves 160.0 GB/s due to slower memory clocks. The P2200 supports newer API standards, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and an older Vulkan 1.2.175. The K2 also lacks any FP16 support, while the P2200 has limited FP16 at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 3.822 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| Length | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | June 2019 | May 2013 |

| Launch MSRP |, | 5,199 USD |

The differences are stark. The P2200 is a compact, single-slot card that draws only 75 W and requires no external power connectors, while the K2 is a long, dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP that needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The P2200’s suggested PSU is 250 W, whereas the K2 demands 550 W. The K2’s launch MSRP was 5,199 USD, a figure not available for the P2200.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins in almost every measurable metric. It has higher FP32 performance at 3.822 TFLOPS versus 2.289 TFLOPS, higher pixel and texture rates, faster memory bandwidth, and a far better OpenCL score. It is also dramatically more power-efficient, with a 75 W TDP compared to the K2’s 225 W. For any workstation task involving 3D rendering, compute, or general GPU acceleration, the P2200 is the superior choice. Its four DisplayPort outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor setups, and its single-slot design fits in tighter chassis.

The GRID K2’s only advantage is its lack of display outputs, which is not a performance win but a design choice for its intended role. It was built for server-side virtualization, where GPUs are passed through to virtual machines over a network without any physical display connection. The K2 also has more shading units (1,536 vs. 1,280) and TMUs (128 vs. 80), though this does not translate into better real-world performance. Its wider 256-bit memory bus is another spec advantage, but the slower GDDR5 memory negates it. For its specific use case as a virtualization accelerator, the K2’s feature set is what matters, not raw speed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the faster, more efficient, and more capable card. It outperforms the GRID K2 by 205.1% in OpenCL compute, offers over 70% more memory bandwidth, and does so while consuming a third of the power. Anyone building a workstation for 3D modeling, CAD, or GPU compute should choose the P2200 without hesitation. Its 44th percentile ranking and compatibility with modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 make it a practical choice for current software.

The GRID K2 is a different beast entirely. It is not a card for a desktop workstation; it is a server component for virtualized environments. Its lack of display outputs and dual-slot, 225 W design are not flaws but features for a datacenter. If you need to deliver GPU acceleration to virtual machines, the K2’s architecture is suited for that purpose, even if its performance is dated. Its 42nd percentile ranking and 8,080 average score show it is still functional, but it is far behind modern hardware.

In summary, for a physical workstation, the P2200 is the only rational choice. For a server virtualization project, the K2 might still have a role, but its age and lower performance mean the P2200 would be a better investment if you can find a way to work around its display outputs. Choose the P2200 for raw compute, efficiency, and modern feature support. Choose the K2 only if your use case specifically requires a displayless virtualization accelerator and you have the power budget to feed it.