NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the only head-to-head test available, taking Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11,771 against the K2200’s 11,431 — a 2.9% margin. That single win gives the K5100M a 1-0 record in direct comparisons. However, the K2200 posts a higher average benchmark score overall: 10,761 versus 10,043, a difference of roughly 7.2%. The K2200 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 49th percentile compared to the K5100M’s 48th.

The K2200’s average is buoyed by its two recorded benchmark results: an OpenCL score of 11,431 and a Vulkan score of 10,090. The K5100M counters with an OpenCL score of 11,771 and a Metal score of 8,315. Notably, the K5100M has no Vulkan result in the data, while the K2200 has no Metal result. This means the K2200’s advantage in average score is driven by its Vulkan performance, which is 21.3% higher than the K5100M’s Metal score. In raw compute terms, the K5100M’s OpenCL lead is real but modest, and the K2200’s broader API coverage gives it a statistical edge.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL, the K5100M is the pick. For anything touching Vulkan — or for a more balanced overall profile — the K2200 is superior. The data shows no scenario where the K2200 wins a direct head-to-head, yet its average score and percentile suggest it is the more consistent performer across different test types.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different foundry generations. The K2200 is built on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, while the K5100M uses the GK104 chip with the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the K5100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the K2200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 12.6M per mm² for the K2200 versus 12.0M per mm² for the K5100M — a marginal density advantage for the newer Maxwell design.

The K5100M compensates for its lower clock speeds with far more execution resources. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the K5100M has 2.4x the shading units, 3.2x the texture units, and 2x the ROPs of the K2200. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the K2200 runs at 1,046 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, while the K5100M is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost. The K2200’s higher clocks help close the gap, but they cannot fully offset the K5100M’s massive resource advantage in raw throughput.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s. The K5100M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the K2200’s is 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) — the K2200’s faster memory clock partially mitigates its narrower bus, but the K5100M still has 43.6% more bandwidth. In terms of features, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the K5100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 — a meaningful gap for modern API workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head result is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K5100M wins 11,771 to 11,431. That is a 2.9% delta in favor of the K5100M. In absolute terms, the K5100M’s score is 340 points higher. This is a modest victory, not a dominant one. The K5100M’s higher shading unit count and wider memory bus likely drive this win, but the K2200’s higher clocks keep it close.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the K2200’s Vulkan score of 10,090 represents its strongest non-OpenCL result. The K5100M has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the K5100M’s Metal score of 8,315 is its second result, and it trails the K2200’s Vulkan score by 1,775 points — a 21.3% deficit. The K2200’s OpenCL score is within 3% of the K5100M’s, yet its Vulkan score is far above the K5100M’s Metal score. This suggests the K2200 is the more versatile card across different compute APIs, even if it loses the single shared test.

In terms of nearest rivals, the K2200’s average score of 10,761 places it between the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, +0.7%). The K5100M’s average of 10,043 sits between the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, +0.3%). The K2200’s rival list shows tighter clustering, with deltas ranging from -1.1% to +1.2%, while the K5100M’s rivals range from -0.3% to +2.0%. The K5100M’s closest rival is the R9 M375, which it trails by just 0.3%, while its largest advantage is 2.0% over the Quadro 6000.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 68 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height | None listed |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro Maxwell-M |

The K5100M leads in raw compute resources: more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory, and bandwidth. The K2200 leads in clock speeds, transistor density, Vulkan support, and physical design (single-slot versus MXM module). The K5100M’s FP32 throughput is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the K2200 — a 64.7% advantage. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, a 37.2% lead for the K5100M. Texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s, a 119.5% lead.

The K2200’s TDP is 68 W versus 100 W for the K5100M, meaning the K2200 draws 32% less power. The K2200 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the K5100M lists none. The K5100M is a mobile-oriented MXM module with display outputs dependent on the portable device, whereas the K2200 is a desktop single-slot card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11,431 for the K2200, a 2.9% margin in favor of the K5100M.

Q: Does the K2200 have any benchmark advantage over the K5100M?

A: Yes. The K2200 has a Vulkan score of 10,090, while the K5100M has no Vulkan result. The K2200’s average benchmark score is 10,761 versus 10,043 for the K5100M.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s. The K2200 has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The K5100M has 1,536 shading units, which is 2.4x the 640 shading units found on the K2200.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, while the K5100M has a TDP of 100 W — a 32 W difference.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The K2200 has a density of 12.6M transistors per mm², slightly higher than the K5100M’s 12.0M per mm², despite the K5100M having nearly double the total transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buyers. For mobile workstations, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the only option between the two — it is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops, not desktops. Its 8 GB memory, 256-bit bus, and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth make it the better choice for large datasets or high-resolution textures. Its OpenCL win over the K2200, while narrow at 2.9%, confirms it holds a compute edge in that API. The K5100M’s 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 98.69 GTexel/s texture rate are the highest numbers in the comparison, making it the raw-performance leader.

For desktop users, the K2200 is the more sensible pick based on the data. It has a higher average benchmark score (10,761 versus 10,043), a higher percentile ranking (49th versus 48th), and Vulkan 1.4 support that the K5100M lacks. Its 68 W TDP is 32 W lower, and it comes as a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card with fixed display outputs, meaning no adapter dependency. The K2200’s closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, is within 0.4%, while the K5100M’s closest rival, the Radeon R9 M375, is within 0.3% — both cards are tightly clustered among their peers, but the K2200’s average is higher in absolute terms.

The verdict is straightforward: if you need a mobile GPU with maximum memory and raw throughput, choose the K5100M. If you need a desktop GPU with broader API support, better average scores, and lower power draw, choose the K2200. The K5100M wins the only direct head-to-head, but that victory is narrow, and the K2200’s overall benchmark profile makes it the more balanced card for general use. Neither card is current — both are end-of-life — but among these two legacy options, the choice hinges entirely on form factor and API requirements, not on overall superiority.