NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two Quadro cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,313 points against the Quadro K2200's 11,431 points. This translates to a 7.7% advantage for the K4200, a solid but not overwhelming lead in compute workloads. The K4200's raw shader throughput and wider memory subsystem likely contribute to this margin, though the exact architectural reasons are covered later.

The gap widens considerably in the Vulkan test. The K4200 delivers 12,482 points, while the K2200 manages only 10,090 points. That is a 23.7% difference, a substantial performance disparity that indicates the K4200 handles modern graphics API workloads with significantly more headroom. The K2200's lower shading unit count and narrower memory bus become more pronounced in this scenario.

Across the two recorded benchmark suites, the K4200 wins both. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the K4200 sits at 12,398 points, while the K2200 trails at 10,761 points. That is a 15.2% gap in aggregate performance. The K4200 also places higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking, at the 52nd percentile versus the K2200's 49th percentile, meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of the database's tracked GPUs.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The K4200's average score of 12,398 is 1.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625), 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710), and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773). Conversely, it is 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (11,998). This places the K4200 in a competitive mid-range band, close to but slightly below some higher-end workstation and consumer parts.

The K2200's nearest rivals tell a similar story but at a lower performance level. Its 10,761 average is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883). It sits 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). The K2200 is thus clustered with much older and less capable GPUs, underscoring its position as a lower-tier option relative to the K4200.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins the OpenCL test by 7.7% and the Vulkan test by a decisive 23.7%. Its average benchmark score is 15.2% higher than the K2200's, and its percentile ranking is three points higher. For any workload where compute or graphics throughput matters, the K4200 is the clear choice based on these measurements.

However, the K2200 is not without merit in specific contexts. Its power draw is significantly lower: 68 W versus 108 W for the K4200. It requires no power connectors, while the K4200 needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply is also lower, 250 W versus 300 W. This makes the K2200 a more suitable option for systems with strict power budgets or limited PSU capacity. Its physical length is also shorter at 202 mm versus 241 mm, which could matter for compact chassis.

The K2200 also runs with a higher base clock, 1046 MHz versus 771 MHz on the K4200, and a higher boost clock, 1124 MHz versus 784 MHz. This higher clock rate does not compensate for the K4200's raw resource advantage, but it does indicate better per-clock efficiency in the Maxwell architecture. Users prioritizing low power consumption, minimal cooling requirements, or space-constrained builds may prefer the K2200 despite its lower benchmark scores.

For general workstation tasks, CAD, or GPU-accelerated compute where performance is the primary criterion, the K4200 is the better pick. For silent or low-power systems, or those with limited physical space, the K2200 offers a viable alternative with acceptable performance. The choice hinges on whether raw throughput or operational efficiency matters more.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K4200 is built on Kepler, using the GK104 chip. The Quadro K2200 uses Maxwell, with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially. The GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is slightly higher on the GM107, at 12.6 million per mm² versus 12.0 million per mm² for the GK104.

The Kepler chip is physically larger and more complex, but the Maxwell chip achieves better clock efficiency. The K2200's base clock of 1046 MHz and boost clock of 1124 MHz far exceed the K4200's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. This suggests Maxwell's architecture is more power-efficient per clock, which aligns with the K2200's lower TDP of 68 W versus the K4200's 108 W.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the K4200 has more than double the shading units and nearly three times the TMUs, explaining its higher theoretical pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s). The K4200's FP32 throughput is 2.107 TFLOPS, while the K2200 is rated at 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The K4200 uses a 256-bit memory bus with GDDR5 running at 1350 MHz, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2200 has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 at 1253 MHz, resulting in 80.19 GB/s. Both have 4 GB of VRAM, but the K4200's wider bus provides more than double the bandwidth, a critical factor for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

API support differs slightly in Vulkan versions. The K4200 reports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the K2200 lists Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The newer Vulkan version on the K2200 may offer better compatibility with recent drivers, but the K4200's higher benchmark scores in Vulkan suggest its hardware resources dominate.

Specification Differences

The physical dimensions differ, with the K4200 measuring 241 mm in length and the K2200 at 202 mm. Both are single-slot cards and share the same height of 111 mm. Power requirements are a major differentiator: the K4200 has a TDP of 108 W and needs a single 6-pin power connector, while the K2200 draws only 68 W and requires no additional power connectors. The suggested power supply is 300 W for the K4200 and 250 W for the K2200.

The bus interface is identical, with both using PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are also the same, featuring one DVI port and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. This means multi-monitor setups are equally supported on both cards.

Clock speeds are a notable difference. The K4200 runs at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost, while the K2200 operates at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the K4200's GDDR5 runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the K2200's GDDR5 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the K4200's wider 256-bit bus delivers more bandwidth than the K2200's 128-bit bus.

The shading unit count, TMU count, and ROP count are all higher on the K4200, as are the pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. These specifications explain the benchmark results, where the K4200 consistently outperforms the K2200 despite the latter's higher clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has an average benchmark score of 12,398, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 10,761. This makes the K4200 15.2% higher on average.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The K4200 scores 12,482 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the K2200's 10,090. This is a 23.7% advantage for the K4200, the largest recorded difference between the two cards.

Q: Does the K2200 consume less power than the K4200?

A: Yes. The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and needs no power connectors, while the K4200 has a TDP of 108 W and requires a single 6-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the K2200 and 300 W for the K4200.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, while the K2200 has 640. The K4200 also has 112 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, versus 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the K2200.

Q: Do both cards support the same display outputs?

A: Yes, both the K4200 and K2200 offer one DVI port and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. They also both use a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and are single-slot designs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The K4200 has a 256-bit memory bus with GDDR5 running at 1350 MHz, delivering 172.8 GB/s. The K2200 has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 at 1253 MHz, delivering 80.19 GB/s. The K4200 offers more than double the bandwidth.