GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, and benchmark data clearly favors the newer K2200. The K2200 wins the only shared head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 11,431 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, a 16.1% advantage. This result, combined with architectural differences, positions the K2200 as the more capable card for modern compute workloads, despite the Quadro 6000's larger memory pool and wider memory bus.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is faster, scoring 11,431 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846. This represents a 16.1% performance advantage for the K2200 in this test.

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of overall benchmark percentile?

A: The K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 6000 is at the 47th percentile. The K2200's average benchmark score is 10,761, whereas the Quadro 6000's average is 9,846.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a larger 6 GB frame buffer with a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2200 has 4 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 thus offers 78.8% more memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and larger die size?

A: The Quadro 6000 features 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the K2200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Consequently, the Quadro 6000 has a significantly larger physical footprint.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the K2200 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The K2200 has a 68 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their divergent performance profiles. The K2200 uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip based on the older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference alone gives the K2200 a density advantage with 12.6 million transistors per mm² versus 5.9 million for the Quadro 6000.

The compute resources are organized differently. The K2200 packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000, despite having fewer shading units at 448, has more TMUs at 56 and significantly more ROPs at 48. This suggests the Quadro 6000 was designed for heavier pixel throughput tasks, while the K2200 focuses on shader-intensive work. The K2200's raw FP32 throughput is 1,438.7 GFLOPS, exceeding the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS by 40% in theoretical compute.

Feature support also diverges. The K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and is listed with a DirectX 12 (11_0) API level. The Quadro 6000 also lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. Both cards lack dedicated RT cores and tensor cores. The K2200 is described as part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, while the Quadro 6000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, despite the K2200's Maxwell architecture, indicating a naming overlap during a transition period.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The K2200 scores 11,431 points, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points. The K2200 wins by 1,585 points, which translates to a 16.1% performance delta. This is a substantial margin for a single-generation professional workload test.

Looking at the surrounding competitive landscape reinforces this result. The K2200's average benchmark score of 10,761 places it slightly behind the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, a -0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, a -1.1% delta), but ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, a 0.7% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, a 1.2% delta). The Quadro 6000's average score of 9,846 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, a 0.1% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, a 0.4% delta), while edging out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, a 0.7% delta) but trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, a -1.1% delta). The K2200's 16.1% lead over the Quadro 6000 in the head-to-head is consistent with its higher percentile ranking.

The data shows a clear winner in compute performance. The K2200's higher shading unit count and clock speeds (1,046 MHz base, 1,124 MHz boost) compared to the Quadro 6000's older architecture yield tangible benchmark gains. The Quadro 6000's memory bandwidth advantage does not translate into OpenCL compute superiority, suggesting the test favors shader throughput over memory access patterns.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts between the two cards. The K2200 is built on a 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors and a 148 mm² die size, while the Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors and a 529 mm² die. The K2200's transistor density is 12.6M per mm², more than double the Quadro 6000's 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the K2200 has a base clock of 1,046 MHz and a boost clock of 1,124 MHz, while the Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks also vary, with the K2200 running at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro 6000's 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the Quadro 6000: 6 GB on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The compute unit counts diverge: the K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K2200 achieves a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 6000 manages 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, respectively.

Power and physical requirements differ substantially. The K2200 consumes 68 W, is single-slot, and has no power connectors. The Quadro 6000 consumes 204 W, is dual-slot, and requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the K2200 and 550 W for the Quadro 6000. The K2200 is also shorter at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches). Both cards have the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) and use a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The K2200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Quadro 6000 provides 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video.

Where Each One Wins

The K2200 wins in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 11,431 versus 9,846 for the Quadro 6000, combined with higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS), makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, shader-heavy rendering, and modern API support. The K2200 also wins on power efficiency, the 68 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro 6000's 204 W, making it suitable for systems with smaller power supplies and better thermal profiles. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors simplify installation.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory-centric scenarios. Its 6 GB frame buffer, 384-bit bus, and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth provide 78.8% more bandwidth than the K2200. This makes it better suited for workloads that require large datasets resident in VRAM or texture-heavy applications that benefit from wider memory paths. The higher ROP count (48 versus 16) also suggests an advantage in fill-rate-bound tasks, even though the K2200's pixel rate is slightly higher (17.98 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s). The Quadro 6000's 4,399 USD launch MSRP (the K2200 has no listed launch MSRP) reflects its original positioning as a high-end professional card.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 as the superior card for most professional workloads. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison with a 16.1% margin, offers more than double the FP32 compute throughput, supports Vulkan, and consumes only one-third of the power. Its 49th percentile ranking versus the Quadro 6000's 47th percentile confirms its overall performance advantage.

However, the Quadro 6000 is not obsolete in every context. Users needing more than 4 GB of VRAM, particularly for large model visualization or high-resolution texture sets, will find the 6 GB frame buffer and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth valuable. Its higher ROP count and wider memory bus may also benefit specific legacy OpenGL workloads.

For new deployments, the K2200 is the logical choice based on benchmark results. For those with existing Quadro 6000 installations that rely on its memory capacity, the upgrade path is less clear-cut. The K2200's 16.1% benchmark lead and modern feature set make it the better all-around performer, but the Quadro 6000's memory advantages keep it relevant for specialized use cases. Ultimately, the K2200's generation advantage in compute efficiency and API support gives it the verdict for most users.