GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and NVIDIA Quadro K1200 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they represent two distinctly different eras of GPU design. The P2200, based on the Pascal architecture, is the newer and significantly more powerful of the two, while the K1200, based on the older Maxwell architecture, serves as a baseline for entry-level professional visualization. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance gulf between these two cards, with the P2200 delivering dominant wins across every measurable workload.

Where Each One Wins

The performance landscape is unequivocal. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins in every single benchmark category where both cards have been tested. The K1200 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. This is not a case of one card edging out the other in specific tasks; it is a complete generational and architectural sweep by the P2200.

The P2200’s dominance is most pronounced in compute-oriented workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose GPU compute performance, the P2200 achieves a score of 32,344, a massive 266.3% improvement over the K1200’s 8,831. This indicates that the P2200 is not just faster for graphics but fundamentally better suited for tasks that leverage the GPU for parallel processing, such as rendering, simulation, and data analysis.

Similarly, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which assesses graphics and compute performance through the Vulkan API, the P2200 scores 31,351, a staggering 307.3% higher than the K1200’s 7,698. This suggests that the P2200 will provide a dramatically smoother experience in modern applications that utilize Vulkan for both rendering and compute effects.

For the K1200, there is no specific workload where it emerges as a winner. Its performance is best characterized as a functional but dated baseline. The data indicates that while the K1200 can handle professional tasks, it does so with a fraction of the performance headroom offered by the P2200. The K1200’s role is strictly as an entry point, while the P2200 is a substantial step up in capability.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparity is rooted in significant architectural and specification differences between the two cards. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 employs the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, built on an older 28 nm process, also by TSMC. This process node difference is a primary driver of efficiency and performance.

The P2200’s chip is substantially larger and more complex. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². The K1200’s GM107 chip, by comparison, houses 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a lower density of 12.6 million per mm². This generational leap in design allows the P2200 to pack significantly more compute resources.

The core configurations reflect this disparity. The P2200 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 render output units (ROPs). The K1200 is equipped with only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the P2200 has 2.5 times the shading units, 2.5 times the TMUs, and 2.5 times the ROPs of the K1200, directly translating to higher fill rates and geometric throughput.

Memory subsystems also differ markedly. The P2200 comes with 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 200.2 GB/s. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of only 80.19 GB/s. The P2200’s memory is not only faster in type but also provides a wider bus and higher capacity, which is critical for large textures and datasets in professional applications.

Clock speeds and power characteristics also tell the story. The P2200 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1493 MHz, while the K1200 operates at a base of 954 MHz and a boost of 1033 MHz. Despite the higher performance, the P2200 has a TDP of 75 W, compared to the K1200’s 45 W. This shows that the P2200 delivers its massive performance increase within a modest power envelope, proof of the efficiency of the 16 nm process.

Other differences include the bus interface, where the P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 while the K1200 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ, with the P2200 offering 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and the K1200 providing 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The P2200 also supports a higher DirectX feature level of 12_1, while the K1200 is limited to 11_0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data provided offers a clear, quantitative comparison for two specific workloads. The results are not close, with the P2200 achieving triple-digit percentage leads in both tests.

In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the P2200 scores 32,344 points against the K1200’s 8,831 points. This results in a delta of 266.3% in favor of the P2200. This score is a strong indicator of the P2200’s ability to handle compute-heavy tasks. For context, the P2200’s overall average benchmark score is 8,686, which places it at the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 with an average score of 8,743 (a delta of -0.7%) and the AMD FirePro W5170M with 8,595 (a delta of 1.1%). The K1200, with an average score of 8,265, sits at the 43rd percentile, with rivals like the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scoring 8,325 (a delta of -0.7%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scoring 8,167 (a delta of 1.2%). The P2200’s OpenCL score is nearly four times that of the K1200, underscoring a complete change in compute capability.

The Geekbench Vulkan benchmark shows an even wider gap. The P2200 achieves a score of 31,351, while the K1200 manages only 7,698. This yields a delta of 307.3% for the P2200. This result suggests that the P2200 is exceptionally well-suited for modern graphics APIs that enable lower-level hardware access, delivering a far smoother experience in applications that leverage Vulkan. The K1200’s score is a fraction of the P2200’s, indicating it is not competitive in this metric.

These two benchmarks alone are sufficient to demonstrate the performance hierarchy. The P2200 is in a different performance class, offering over three times the performance in Vulkan and nearly four times in OpenCL compared to the K1200.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is significantly faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 32,344 compared to the K1200’s 8,831. This represents a 266.3% performance advantage for the P2200.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance between the two cards?

A: The P2200 dominates the Vulkan benchmark with a score of 31,351, while the K1200 scores 7,698. The P2200 is 307.3% faster than the K1200 in this test.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The P2200 features 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the P2200 and K1200?

A: The P2200 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process with 1,280 shading units, while the K1200 uses the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process with 512 shading units. The P2200 also has a larger transistor count of 4,400 million versus 1,870 million.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The P2200 is ranked at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the K1200 is ranked at the 43rd percentile. Despite the P2200’s massive benchmark wins, both cards sit very close in the overall percentile ranking.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference between the two cards?

A: The P2200 has a pixel rate of 59.72 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the K1200’s 16.53 GPixel/s. This indicates the P2200 can fill the screen with pixels much faster.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear and unambiguous verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior card in every measurable way. For any user deciding between these two, the choice should be based on the P2200, provided the slightly higher power requirement of 75 W (versus 45 W) and a 250 W suggested PSU (versus 200 W) are acceptable.

The P2200 is the only sensible choice for any workload that demands serious compute performance. Its 266.3% advantage in OpenCL and 307.3% advantage in Vulkan benchmarks make it a far more capable tool for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, and complex data processing. The K1200’s performance, while functional for basic tasks, falls so far behind that it would be a bottleneck in any modern professional environment.

The K1200’s only potential merit is its lower power draw of 45 W and its smaller physical footprint (160 mm length versus 201 mm). However, these physical advantages do not compensate for the massive performance deficit. The K1200 is a product of an older generation, and its benchmark scores reflect its age.

For professional users, the P2200’s higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and newer architecture make it the clear pick for handling contemporary workloads. For those who only need the most basic 2D or very light 3D acceleration and have strict power constraints, the K1200 could suffice, but the performance gap is so large that even then, the P2200 is a better long-term investment. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the K1200 is the recommended choice over the P2200.