NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 represent two generations of NVIDIA's professional Quadro line, separated by roughly two years and a full architecture shift. The K5000 arrived first, built on the Kepler architecture with a large die and a 256-bit memory bus, while the K2200 followed on Maxwell, trading raw width for a newer, more efficient design. The recorded data shows a split decision in compute benchmarks, with the K2200 winning OpenCL by a hair and the K5000 taking Vulkan by a wide margin. Both cards sit near the middle of the all-GPU distribution, at the 49th and 46th percentiles respectively, which makes this a closer contest than their spec sheets suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is a one-all split, but the two results tell very different stories.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K2200 scores 11431 against the K5000's 11418. That is a margin of just 13 points, a delta of 0.1 percent, and it goes to the K2200. Practically speaking, this is a tie: the Maxwell-based card with 640 shading units matches a Kepler card with 1536 shading units in this general compute workload. That parity is the headline takeaway from the OpenCL result, because it shows how much Maxwell improved per-unit throughput and efficiency over Kepler.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro K5000 wins decisively. It scores 11169 against the K2200's 10090, a delta of 9.7 percent in the K5000's favor. Despite running at lower clock speeds (706 MHz base and boost, versus 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost on the K2200), the K5000's much wider resource pool carries it through. The K5000 doubles the K2200's render outputs (32 versus 16), more than triples its shading units (1536 versus 640), and more than triples its texture mapping units (128 versus 40). The corresponding rates bear this out: 90.37 GTexel/s of texture throughput versus 44.96 GTexel/s, and 22.59 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s.

The memory subsystem reinforces the gap. The K5000's 256-bit bus delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth; the K2200's 128-bit bus delivers 80.19 GB/s. That is well over double the bandwidth on the older card, and bandwidth-heavy graphics workloads like the Vulkan test are exactly where that advantage shows up.

Aggregate scoring slightly favors the K2200. Its average benchmark score is 10761 against the K5000's 9637, though the K5000's average includes a Geekbench Metal result of 6324 that has no counterpart on the K2200, which drags its mean down. Percentile placement is nearly identical: the K2200 sits at the 49th percentile against all GPUs in the database, the K5000 at the 46th.

Context from their respective rival clusters also matters. The K2200 trades blows with the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (average score 10804, delta -0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690, +0.7 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883, -1.1 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10629, +1.2 percent). The K5000 clusters around the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9645, -0.1 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653, -0.2 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665, -0.3 percent), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9716, -0.8 percent). Both cards compete in tightly packed neighborhoods where single-digit percentage deltas separate neighbors.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head record?

A: It is a one-all split. The K2200 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 0.1 percent (11431 versus 11418), and the K5000 wins Geekbench Vulkan by 9.7 percent (11169 versus 10090).

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The K5000 is far ahead in theoretical FP32 throughput at 2.169 TFLOPS, versus 1438.7 GFLOPS for the K2200. However, benchmark results indicate the K2200 matches it in OpenCL despite the on-paper gap.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K5000, by a wide margin. Its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory running at an effective 5.4 Gbps deliver 172.8 GB/s, while the K2200's 128-bit bus at 5 Gbps effective delivers 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Not quite. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2200 lists Vulkan 1.4 support while the K5000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How power-hungry is each card?

A: The K2200 is a 68 W, single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. The K5000 is a 122 W, dual-slot card requiring one 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The K5000 was released on August 16, 2012, and the K2200 on July 21, 2014.

The Verdict

The data favors the K2200 for efficiency-focused deployments and the K5000 for graphics throughput. If the workload is general GPU compute in OpenCL, the two cards are functionally equivalent, with the K2200 edging ahead by a statistically negligible 0.1 percent. In that scenario the K2200 is the clear practical pick: it delivers identical OpenCL performance at roughly half the power draw (68 W versus 122 W), in a single-slot form factor with no auxiliary power connector, and in a shorter board (202 mm versus 267 mm).

If the workload leans on graphics and the Vulkan API, the K5000 is the stronger choice. Its 9.7 percent Vulkan victory, backed by more than double the memory bandwidth, twice the render outputs, and more than double the pixel and texture rates, makes it the better fit for display-heavy and rendering-oriented professional use. It also offers four display outputs (two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2) versus three on the K2200 (one DVI, two DisplayPort 1.2).

Neither card holds an advantage in memory capacity: both carry 4 GB of GDDR5. Both sit in the same neighborhood of the all-GPU distribution, at the 46th and 49th percentiles, so neither offers a meaningful tier advantage over the other in overall standing. The K2200's slightly newer API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175) is a point in its favor for modern software compatibility. The K5000's launch MSRP was 2,499 USD.

Specification Differences

The two cards share a manufacturer, process node, foundry, memory capacity and type, bus interface, height, production status, and API baseline, but differ substantially elsewhere:

• Chip and architecture: GM107 on Maxwell (K2200) versus GK104 on Kepler (K5000)
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 3,540 million
• Die size: 148 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm²
• Base and boost clocks: 1046 MHz and 1124 MHz (K2200) versus a fixed 706 MHz (K5000)
• Memory speed: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective)
• Bus width and bandwidth: 128 bit and 80.19 GB/s versus 256 bit and 172.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 640 versus 1536
• Texture mapping units: 40 versus 128
• Render outputs: 16 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 17.98 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.96 GTexel/s versus 90.37 GTexel/s
• FP32 throughput: 1438.7 GFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS
• TDP: 68 W versus 122 W
• Slot width: single-slot versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: none versus one 6-pin
• Suggested power supply: 250 W versus 300 W
• Display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Board length: 202 mm versus 267 mm
• Release date: July 21, 2014 versus August 16, 2012

Architecture Differences

This comparison is a direct generational contrast: Kepler (K5000, GK104) against Maxwell (K2200, GM107). Both were fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the gains in the K2200 come from architectural refinement rather than a node shrink. The data illustrates the shift clearly. The K5000's die is 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors; the K2200's die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. That is roughly half the silicon and half the transistor budget, yet the K2200 achieves a slightly higher transistor density (12.6M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm²) and matches the K5000 in OpenCL compute.

The philosophical difference between the two designs is visible in their clock and resource strategies. Kepler in the K5000 uses a large array of execution resources running at a fixed 706 MHz. Maxwell in the K2200 uses a smaller array clocked much higher, 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, with clock boosting as an explicit feature where the K5000's boost clock equals its base. Neither card includes RT cores or tensor cores; those arrived in later generations.

Both cards trace their lineage through the Quadro Fermi predecessor and both were succeeded by the Quadro Maxwell line. Their feature sets converge on DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with the newer K2200 carrying the more recent Vulkan support level. In effect, the K5000 represents the wide-and-slow approach with a fat 256-bit memory interface, while the K2200 represents the narrow-and-fast Maxwell approach with dramatically better efficiency per unit of silicon and per watt, which is precisely why the benchmark record between them ends even at one win apiece.