NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both professional mobile/desktop graphics solutions built on the same GM107 chip and Maxwell architecture, yet benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the K2200 wins both head-to-head tests, with a 13.7% lead in OpenCL and a 5% lead in Vulkan. The M2000M, despite a slightly higher base clock, trails in every measured workload, though its lower TDP and mobile-oriented MXM form factor give it a distinct deployment advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most decisive separation between these two cards. The K2200 scores 11,431 versus the M2000M’s 10,057, a 13.7% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it reflects a substantial difference in raw compute throughput under OpenCL workloads. In the Vulkan test, the K2200 again takes the win, scoring 10,090 against 9,606, a 5% margin. While smaller, this still represents a consistent pattern of the K2200 outperforming the M2000M across different API workloads.

The K2200’s wins are not flukes of a single benchmark. Across the two head-to-head tests, it secures 2 wins and 0 losses. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the K2200 sits at 10,761 overall, while the M2000M averages 9,832. That is a 929-point gap, or roughly 9.4% in favor of the K2200. The percentile rankings also reflect this disparity: the K2200 lands in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the M2000M sits lower at the 47th percentile.

When placed against their nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different competitive tiers. The K2200’s average score of 10,761 puts it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883). It edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) by 1.2%. The M2000M, by contrast, trades blows with older and lower-tier hardware: it is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846), 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724). The data indicates the K2200 competes in a higher performance band than the M2000M, even though both are built on identical silicon.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins decisively, scoring 11,431 versus the M2000M’s 10,057, a 13.7% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the M2000M beats the K2200?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the K2200 wins both. The M2000M records 0 wins.

Q: How do these cards compare to their closest rivals?

A: The K2200’s average score (10,761) places it near the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, -0.4%) and above the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, +0.7%). The M2000M’s average (9,832) is nearly tied with the Quadro 6000 (9,846, -0.1%) and slightly ahead of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, +0.5%).

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with identical bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s and memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The M2000M has a 55 W TDP, while the K2200 draws 68 W. The M2000M is the more power-efficient option.

Q: Are there differences in API support?

A: No. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 identically.

Architecture Differences

Both the K2200 and M2000M are built on the same GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 1,870 million, and the die size is the same at 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². In terms of core configuration, there is no divergence: both cards feature 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as these are Maxwell-generation parts without dedicated acceleration hardware.

The fundamental architectural similarity means differences in performance must come from clock speeds and implementation context. The M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, whereas the K2200 runs at 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Despite the M2000M’s higher clocks, the K2200 achieves higher benchmark scores, suggesting that the mobile-oriented M2000M may face thermal or power constraints that limit sustained performance. The pixel rate and texture rate tell a similar story: the M2000M has a theoretical pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s and texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s, while the K2200 trails slightly at 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s. Yet in real-world benchmarks, the K2200 wins, indicating that theoretical peak rates do not translate directly to application performance.

The FP32 compute output also favors the M2000M on paper: 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the K2200. Neither card supports FP16 (half-precision) compute, as that field is null for both. The architectural takeaway is that these are the same GPU die, but the K2200’s desktop-oriented design appears to extract better actual performance from the silicon.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap is power consumption: the K2200 has a 68 W TDP, while the M2000M draws just 55 W. This 13 W difference is substantial for mobile deployments. The form factor also differs entirely: the K2200 is a single-slot card with a length of 202 mm (8 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), whereas the M2000M is an MXM Module with no listed dimensions. The bus interface reflects this: the K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0).

Neither card requires external power connectors, but the K2200 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M2000M has no suggested PSU field. Display outputs also diverge: the K2200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the M2000M’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The release dates differ by roughly 17 months: the K2200 launched on 2014-07-21, and the M2000M on 2015-12-02. Both are end-of-life products, with the K2200 succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell, while the M2000M succeeds Quadro Kepler-M and precedes Quadro Pascal-M. Their generations are labeled differently as “Quadro Kepler (Kx200)” for the K2200 and “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)” for the M2000M, despite sharing the same Maxwell architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The K2200 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It is 13.7% faster in OpenCL and 5% faster in Vulkan, with a higher average benchmark score (10,761 versus 9,832) and a better overall percentile ranking (49th versus 47th). For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute—such as certain simulation, rendering, or data-processing tasks—the K2200 is the clear choice. Its desktop form factor with DVI and dual DisplayPort outputs also makes it suitable for fixed workstations with external displays.

The M2000M’s strengths are not in raw performance but in deployment flexibility and efficiency. Its 55 W TDP is 13 W lower than the K2200’s 68 W, making it better suited for thermal-constrained environments like laptops or compact systems. The MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and portable-device-dependent outputs indicate this card is designed for mobile workstations where upgradeability and space are priorities. Its higher base and boost clocks (1098/1137 MHz versus 1046/1124 MHz) give it a slight theoretical edge in peak throughput, even if that does not translate into benchmark wins. For users who need a Maxwell-generation professional GPU in a laptop form factor, the M2000M is the only option between these two.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in every measured benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 13.7%, Vulkan by 5%, and holds a 929-point lead in average benchmark score. Its 49th percentile ranking versus the M2000M’s 47th confirms that the K2200 sits in a higher performance tier among all GPUs. For any user prioritizing compute performance, professional graphics workloads, or desktop workstation deployment, the K2200 is the superior choice.

However, the M2000M is not without its niche. Its 55 W TDP makes it significantly more power-efficient than the K2200’s 68 W, and its MXM Module form factor is purpose-built for mobile workstations. Users who require a Maxwell-based professional GPU in a laptop, or who have strict power budgets, will find the M2000M to be the appropriate selection. The performance penalty is real—roughly 9.4% lower average score—but it is the trade-off for mobile compatibility and reduced power draw. In short: choose the K2200 for performance, choose the M2000M for mobility and efficiency. Neither card offers a clear advantage in memory, core count, or API support, as those specifications are identical. The decision ultimately comes down to form factor and power constraints versus raw benchmark performance.