NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, with the P4000 winning both benchmark tests in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36,212 against the K2200's 11,431, a delta of 68.4% in favor of the Pascal-based card. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the P4000 posts 41,786 while the K2200 manages only 10,090, a 75.9% advantage for the newer GPU.

These are not marginal differences. The OpenCL score places the P4000 at roughly 3.2 times the K2200's compute throughput, while Vulkan shows a 4.1x multiplier. For context, the K2200's average benchmark score of 10,761 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which averages 10,629, and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804. The P4000's average of 9,665, by contrast, is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645. This means the two cards occupy entirely different performance tiers despite their adjacent percentile rankings: the K2200 lands at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the P4000 sits at the 47th.

The per-test deltas reveal where the P4000's architectural advantages translate into measurable wins. In OpenCL, the P4000's 16 nm GP104 die with 1,792 shading units crushes the K2200's 28 nm GM107 with 640 shading units. The Vulkan result extends the gap further, likely reflecting the P4000's newer API support and higher sustained clocks under graphics workloads. The K2200, despite its Maxwell architecture, cannot overcome the fundamental deficit in raw resources: fewer than half the shading units, one-third the texture mapping units, and one-quarter the render output units.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a different story than the head-to-head results. The K2200's average of 10,761 is actually higher than the P4000's 9,665, because the P4000's benchmark set includes several Passmark tests where it scores low (DirectX 12 at 40, DirectX 10 at 66, DirectX 11 at 86, and DirectX 9 at 181). The K2200's benchmark set is limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, both of which favor the P4000 overwhelmingly. The weighted average thus pulls the P4000 down, but the head-to-head comparison, which uses identical tests, is unambiguous: the P4000 wins both with massive margins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 versus the Quadro K2200's 11,431, a 68.4% advantage for the P4000.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The P4000 scores 41,786 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the K2200 scores 10,090, making the P4000 75.9% faster.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores indicate about overall performance?

A: The K2200 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,761 compared to the P4000's 9,665, but this includes different test sets. The head-to-head tests, which use identical benchmarks, show the P4000 winning both.

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

A: The K2200 is within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450. The P4000 is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The K2200 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the P4000 sits at the 47th percentile, despite the P4000's dominance in the direct comparison.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, compared to the K2200's 640, a 2.8x difference that drives much of the performance gap.

Architecture Differences

The two Quadro cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The K2200 uses the GM107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die for a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The P4000 uses the GP104 chip on TSMC's 16 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors spread across a 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The smaller process node and higher transistor budget give the P4000 a substantial raw computing advantage.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. This translates to pixel rates of 17.98 GPixel/s for the K2200 versus 94.72 GPixel/s for the P4000, and texture rates of 44.96 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows suit: the K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32, while the P4000 reaches 5.304 TFLOPS, roughly 3.7x higher. The P4000 also has an FP16 rate of 82.88 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the K2200 lists no FP16 capability.

Clock speeds favor the P4000 as well. The K2200 has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz. The P4000 runs at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. Memory clock speeds also differ: the K2200 uses 1253 MHz memory with 5 Gbps effective, while the P4000 uses 1901 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth reflects the bus width difference: the K2200 has a 128-bit bus yielding 80.19 GB/s, while the P4000 has a 256-bit bus yielding 243.3 GB/s, a 3x improvement.

Memory capacity and output configuration also differ. The K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the P4000 has 8 GB. Display outputs are another differentiator: the K2200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the P4000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0); both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical characteristics separate the two as well. The K2200 has a TDP of 68 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. Both are single-slot cards, and both have the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), but the K2200 is shorter at 202 mm (8 inches) versus the P4000's 241 mm (9.5 inches). The K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Quadro P4000 is the superior GPU in every head-to-head measurement. Its OpenCL score is 68.4% higher, its Vulkan score is 75.9% higher, and it carries roughly 2.8x more shading units, 2.8x more texture units, 4x more render outputs, and 3x the memory bandwidth. For any workload that stresses compute or graphics throughput, the P4000 is the only rational choice between these two.

The K2200, however, is not without its niche. Its lower TDP of 68 W versus 105 W, lack of external power connectors, and shorter 202 mm length make it easier to integrate into space-constrained or power-limited systems. Its average benchmark score of 10,761 is also higher than the P4000's 9,665, though this reflects a different benchmark mix rather than genuine superiority. The K2200's 49th percentile ranking versus the P4000's 47th is similarly misleading given the direct comparison.

The production status tells the rest of the story: both cards are end-of-life. The K2200 launched in July 2014, and the P4000 launched in February 2017. The P4000 has a launch MSRP of 815 USD, which the database records as its only pricing data point. Users choosing between these two retired workstation cards should default to the P4000 for performance-critical tasks, while the K2200 only makes sense if power draw, connector requirements, or physical dimensions are the overriding constraints.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2200 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | Quadro Pascal (Px000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1046 MHz | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 40 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | null | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 68 W | 105 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Length | 202 mm (8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2017-02-05 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Quadro Volta |