NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200. The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 points, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 points. This represents a 17.7% advantage for the Quadro K2200, a substantial margin that places the two cards in clearly different performance tiers despite their shared manufacturer.

This 17.7% lead is not a marginal victory. In the context of the nearest rival data, the Quadro K2200's average benchmark score of 10,761 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). The Tesla C2070, with an average benchmark score of 9,716, sits in a slightly lower tier, landing within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780).

The OpenCL gap between the two cards is larger than the gap between either card and its closest rivals. The Quadro K2200's 17.7% lead over the Tesla C2070 in OpenCL dwarfs the 0.4% separation between the Quadro K2200 and the Radeon Pro 450, and it also exceeds the 0.7% gap between the Tesla C2070 and the GeForce GTX 1070. This indicates that the performance difference between the two cards is structural rather than incidental, reflecting fundamental architectural and specification disparities.

When examining the wins tally, the Quadro K2200 takes the single head-to-head benchmark, while the Tesla C2070 records zero wins. The percentile data reinforces this ordering: the Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile. Although both cards occupy the middle of the GPU performance distribution, the Quadro K2200 holds a measurable edge in both absolute score and relative ranking.

The Geekbench Vulkan test further illustrates the Quadro K2200's capabilities, though no comparable Vulkan score exists for the Tesla C2070. The Quadro K2200 achieves 10,090 points in Vulkan, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 11,431 but still indicates a versatile compute profile. The Tesla C2070 lacks a Vulkan score entirely, consistent with its older architecture and compute-focused positioning.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the more capable card in synthetic compute workloads. Its 17.7% OpenCL lead over the Tesla C2070 is substantial, and its higher percentile ranking (49th vs. 47th) confirms this advantage extends beyond a single benchmark. For any user prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL-based applications, the Quadro K2200 is the superior choice.

The Quadro K2200 also offers practical advantages that reinforce this verdict. It consumes 68 W compared to the Tesla C2070's 238 W, a difference that has implications for system requirements and thermal management. The Quadro K2200 requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Tesla C2070 demands a 550 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K2200 is single-slot with no power connectors, whereas the Tesla C2070 is dual-slot and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. These factors make the Quadro K2200 far easier to integrate into a wide range of systems.

However, the Tesla C2070 is not without its own merits. It offers 6 GB of memory versus the Quadro K2200's 4 GB, and it boasts a 384-bit memory bus with 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Quadro K2200's 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads that fit within the Tesla C2070's larger frame buffer, the raw bandwidth advantage could translate into real-world benefits that the OpenCL score does not fully capture.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database. This means the decision between them is not about current availability but rather about understanding which card better suits a specific workload profile.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2200 wins decisively in synthetic compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 11,431 exceeds the Tesla C2070's 9,716 by 17.7%, and its Vulkan score of 10,090 demonstrates additional compute versatility that the Tesla C2070 cannot match. The Quadro K2200's higher average benchmark score of 10,761 versus 9,716 further consolidates its position as the stronger all-around performer in the database's test suite.

The Quadro K2200 also wins on efficiency and form factor. Its 68 W TDP is a fraction of the Tesla C2070's 238 W, and its single-slot design with no auxiliary power connectors makes it compatible with a broader range of chassis and power supplies. The 250 W suggested PSU requirement is far more modest than the Tesla C2070's 550 W suggestion.

The Tesla C2070 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB frame buffer exceeds the Quadro K2200's 4 GB, and its 143.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly double the Quadro K2200's 80.19 GB/s. The 384-bit memory bus provides a wider data path, which could benefit workloads that stream large datasets. For users with applications that require more than 4 GB of memory, the Tesla C2070 is the only option between these two.

The Tesla C2070 also holds advantages in raw texture and pixel processing resources, with 56 TMUs and 48 ROPs versus the Quadro K2200's 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. However, its lower clock rates and older architecture result in lower pixel and texture rates: the Tesla C2070 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K2200 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 scores 9,716. The Quadro K2200 leads by 17.7%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K2200 ranks at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla C2070 ranks at the 47th percentile.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 384-bit bus and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, with no power connectors needed. The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, needing 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 10,090 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Tesla C2070 does not list a Vulkan version or score in the database.

Q: What are the DirectX and OpenGL support levels for both cards?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K2200 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 does not list Vulkan support.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, while the Tesla C2070 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip. This architectural divergence explains many of the performance and efficiency differences observed in the benchmark data.

The manufacturing process differs significantly between the two. The Quadro K2200 uses a 28 nm process node, while the Tesla C2070 uses a 40 nm node, both fabricated by TSMC. The smaller process node allows the Quadro K2200 to achieve higher performance with far lower power consumption. The transistor counts also differ substantially: the Quadro K2200 contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Tesla C2070 contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 5.9M per mm². The Tesla C2070's larger, less dense die reflects the older manufacturing process.

The shading unit counts show an interesting inversion. The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, while the Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units. The Quadro K2200's higher count, combined with its newer architecture, contributes to its FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus the Tesla C2070's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance.

The memory architectures reflect different design priorities. The Quadro K2200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the Tesla C2070 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The Tesla C2070's wider bus yields 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K2200 achieves 80.19 GB/s. The Tesla C2070's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K2200's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), showing that the Quadro K2200 compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory.

The production lineage also differs. The Quadro K2200's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell. The Tesla C2070's predecessor is simply Tesla, and its successor is Tesla Kepler. The Quadro K2200 is listed under the generation "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite using Maxwell architecture, while the Tesla C2070 is listed under "Tesla Fermi (x20xx)".

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Quadro K2200 has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the Tesla C2070 has no listed base or boost clock. The Quadro K2200's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Tesla C2070's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

In terms of core configuration, the Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Tesla C2070 has more TMUs and ROPs, though its lower clocks result in lower pixel and texture rates. The Quadro K2200 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s, while the Tesla C2070 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s.

The physical specifications differ considerably. The Quadro K2200 is single-slot with dimensions of 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The Tesla C2070 is dual-slot with a length of 248 mm (9.8 inches) and no listed height. The Quadro K2200 requires no power connectors, while the Tesla C2070 requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU for the Quadro K2200 is 250 W versus 550 W for the Tesla C2070.

Display outputs also differ: the Quadro K2200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Tesla C2070 offers only 1x DVI. Both use a PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface. In terms of API support, the Quadro K2200 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Tesla C2070 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan support.

The release dates are separated by roughly three years: the Quadro K2200 launched on 2014-07-21, while the Tesla C2070 launched on 2011-07-24. Both cards are marked as end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP listed in the database. The average benchmark score for the Quadro K2200 is 10,761, while the Tesla C2070's average is 9,716, reflecting the Quadro K2200's overall performance advantage.