NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear and decisive outcome in this comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 in every recorded benchmark, securing 2 wins out of 2 head-to-head tests. The K2200 does not register a single victory in the database. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute performance, the P2200 is the definitive choice.

The K2200, built on the older Maxwell architecture, trails by significant margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32,344 against the K2200's 11,431, a difference of 64.7 percent. The Vulkan gap is even wider, with the P2200 at 31,351 versus 10,090, a 67.8 percent lead. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

Professionals seeking maximum compute performance for GPU-accelerated tasks should select the P2200 without hesitation. The K2200, while functional, is positioned far behind in the database rankings. Its average benchmark score of 10,761 places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the P2200 averages 8,686 and sits in the 44th percentile. Notably, the P2200's average is dragged down by its inclusion of additional DirectX and Passmark tests, which the K2200 lacks entirely. In the two directly comparable tests, the P2200 is overwhelmingly faster.

The K2200 is suitable only for legacy systems or workloads where its specific feature set is required, but the recorded data offers no scenario where it wins on performance. The P2200 is the superior workstation card in every measurable way.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations, and the gap in their specifications explains the performance disparity. The K2200 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The P2200 uses the GP106 chip based on Pascal architecture, also built by TSMC but on a more advanced 16 nm process. It packs 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The K2200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2200 offers 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, more than doubling bandwidth to 200.2 GB/s. Memory clocks are similar in raw terms, 1253 MHz for the K2200 and 1251 MHz for the P2200, but the P2200's effective data rate of 10 Gbps is double the K2200's 5 Gbps.

Compute resources also favor the P2200 heavily. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The P2200 doubles those figures to 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Clock behavior differs as well. The K2200 runs at a base of 1046 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the P2200 has a lower base of 1000 MHz but a much higher boost of 1493 MHz. This aggressive boost behavior contributes to the P2200's performance advantage.

Fill rates and compute throughput tell the same story. The K2200 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The P2200 reaches 59.72 GPixel/s and 119.4 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 3.822 TFLOPS. The P2200 also lists FP16 performance of 59.72 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, a feature absent from the K2200's specifications.

Interface and display capabilities differ too. The K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Their physical dimensions are nearly identical, with the K2200 at 202 mm and the P2200 at 201 mm in length, both 111 mm in height. Power consumption is close, 68 W for the K2200 and 75 W for the P2200.

API support also reflects the architectural gap. The K2200 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, while the P2200 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The production status for both is end-of-life, with the K2200 released in July 2014 and the P2200 in June 2019.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmarks show the P2200 winning every test in the head-to-head comparison. There are no wins recorded for the K2200. The P2200's advantage is most pronounced in Vulkan compute, where it leads by 67.8 percent, and in OpenCL, where it leads by 64.7 percent.

For users running OpenCL-based workloads, such as certain rendering, simulation, or data processing tasks, the P2200 is drastically faster. The score of 32,344 versus 11,431 indicates a workload that completes in roughly a third of the time, assuming linear scaling. Vulkan compute workloads show an even larger gap, with the P2200's 31,351 dwarfing the K2200's 10,090.

The P2200 also benefits from its additional benchmark coverage in the database. It has recorded scores for Passmark DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. These include 167 in DirectX 9, 45 in DirectX 10, 70 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 12, 881 in G2D, 9,364 in G3D, and 3,921 in GPU compute. The K2200 has no such entries, meaning the database does not capture its DirectX or general graphics performance.

The K2200's only relative strength lies in its lower power draw of 68 W compared to 75 W for the P2200, a difference of 7 W. It also has a slightly older release date and a smaller transistor count, which historically correlates with lower performance. Neither of these factors translates into a benchmark win. The K2200's average benchmark score of 10,761 is higher than the P2200's 8,686, but this is an artifact of the P2200's additional lower-scoring Passmark tests, not a reflection of real-world superiority.

In practical terms, the P2200 is the card for compute-heavy professional tasks. The K2200 is best suited for systems that cannot accommodate the P2200's requirements, though both cards share the same 250 W suggested PSU and single-slot footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200. It delivers 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K2200 manages 1,438.7 GFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32,344 versus 11,431 for the K2200.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory data rate is 5 Gbps for the K2200 and 10 Gbps for the P2200.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The K2200 was released in July 2014, and the P2200 was released in June 2019.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W, while the P2200 has a TDP of 75 W. Both cards require a suggested PSU of 250 W and have no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The P2200 supports 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The K2200 supports 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The P2200 leads by 67.8 percent. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 31,351, while the K2200 scores 10,090.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two directly comparable benchmarks between these cards, and the P2200 wins both by enormous margins.

The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The P2200 scores 32,344, while the K2200 scores 11,431. The delta percentage is -64.7 percent, meaning the K2200 falls short by nearly two-thirds. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of OpenCL workloads, including image processing, physics simulation, and financial analysis. A score difference of this magnitude indicates that the P2200 completes OpenCL tasks in roughly one-third of the time required by the K2200. The architectural improvements from Maxwell to Pascal, combined with double the shading units and more than double the memory bandwidth, drive this result. The K2200's 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is a severe bottleneck compared to the P2200's 200.2 GB/s.

The second benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the P2200 scores 31,351 against the K2200's 10,090, a delta of -67.8 percent. This is the largest gap in the comparison. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the P2200's DirectX 12_1 feature level support, versus the K2200's 11_0, suggests better modern API efficiency. The P2200's higher boost clock of 1493 MHz, compared to the K2200's 1124 MHz, also contributes to its advantage. The K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is simply insufficient to compete with the P2200's 3.822 TFLOPS in compute-oriented Vulkan workloads.

Beyond these two tests, the P2200 has additional benchmark data that the K2200 lacks entirely. In Passmark G3D, the P2200 scores 9,364, and in GPU compute, it scores 3,921. Its DirectX scores range from 33 in DirectX 12 to 167 in DirectX 9. The G2D score of 881 reflects solid 2D desktop performance. None of these tests have corresponding K2200 entries in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible. However, the P2200's average benchmark score of 8,686 is lower than the K2200's 10,761 because of these additional lower-scoring tests. This is a statistical artifact, not a performance indicator.

The nearest rivals for each card provide context for their standings. The K2200's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, with an average score of 10,690 and a delta of 0.7 percent. It also sits near the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804, the AMD Radeon RX 6600S at 10,629, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10,883. The P2200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746, the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8,595, and the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558. These figures place the P2200 in a different performance tier than the K2200, one that is closer to modern entry-level and mobile graphics solutions.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a one-sided contest. The P2200's wins in OpenCL and Vulkan are decisive, with percentage leads of 64.7 and 67.8 percent respectively. The K2200 offers no counterpoint in the recorded benchmarks. For any user comparing these two cards, the P2200 is the only rational choice based on measured performance.