NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has an average benchmark score of 10761, while the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition has an average score of 9037, giving the Quadro a clear lead in the recorded aggregate data.

Q: How do the two cards compare in their nearest rival positioning?

A: The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at a 0.4% lower score. The TITAN V CEO Edition sits at the 45th percentile, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 as its closest rival at a 0.2% higher score.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V CEO Edition has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096 bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition includes 640 tensor cores, while the Quadro K2200 has no tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the production status and release timeframe for each?

A: Both cards are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro K2200 was released on 2014-07-21, and the TITAN V CEO Edition was released on 2018-06-20.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The TITAN V CEO Edition has a 250 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The TITAN V CEO Edition uses the Volta architecture with the GV100 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink is substantial, and the transistor counts reflect the gap in design ambition: the GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the GV100 contains 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die. Transistor density also differs, with the Quadro at 12.6M per mm² and the TITAN V at 25.9M per mm².

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The TITAN V CEO Edition offers 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The TITAN V also carries 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro, which is important for workloads that use tensor operations. The TITAN V also has a listed FP16 performance of 29.80 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no FP16 figure recorded.

Memory architecture is another major separation point. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit interface, delivering 80.19 GB/s. The TITAN V uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096 bit interface, delivering 868.4 GB/s, which is more than ten times the bandwidth. The TITAN V also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

The API support shows a difference in DirectX level: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, while the TITAN V supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1. Both cards list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 in the database. The display outputs also differ, with the Quadro offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the TITAN V offers 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Physical specifications diverge as well. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 68 W TDP, and a length of 202 mm (8 inches) with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The TITAN V is a dual-slot card at 250 W, requiring a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) in width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records separate benchmark suites for each card rather than a shared head-to-head set, so the comparison relies on the recorded scores and aggregate statistics. The Quadro K2200 posts an OpenCL score of 11431 and a Vulkan score of 10090 on Geekbench. The TITAN V CEO Edition posts a Passmark G2D score of 1086 and a Passmark G3D score of 16988. There is no overlapping test that directly pits the two in the same workload, but the average benchmark scores give a clear summary: the Quadro averages 10761, while the TITAN V averages 9037, a difference of roughly 19% in favor of the Quadro in the aggregate.

The rival comparisons reinforce the positioning. The Quadro K2200 is 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 450, while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 by 1.1%. The TITAN V CEO Edition is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 550X and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560, while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon 890M by 1.9%. In other words, the Quadro competes in a higher performance band among its nearest neighbors, while the TITAN V's closest rivals are older or lower-tier parts.

The raw compute specifications also tell a story, though the benchmark scores do not reflect them in the aggregate. The TITAN V has a texture rate of 465.6 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s for the Quadro, and a pixel rate of 186.2 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. FP32 performance is 14.90 TFLOPS against 1,438.7 GFLOPS. These are massive theoretical advantages for the TITAN V, yet the recorded average benchmark score is lower. This suggests the database's benchmark mix may not align with the TITAN V's peak compute capabilities, or that the specific workloads recorded favor the Quadro's driver tuning and professional focus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category.

• Process node: 28 nm for the Quadro K2200, 12 nm for the TITAN V CEO Edition.
• Transistors: 1,870 million vs 21,100 million.
• Die size: 148 mm² vs 815 mm².
• Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² vs 25.9M / mm².
• Base clock: 1046 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
• Boost clock: 1124 MHz vs 1455 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective).
• Memory size: 4 GB vs 32 GB.
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs HBM2.
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs 4096 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s vs 868.4 GB/s.
• Shading units: 640 vs 5120.
• TMUs: 40 vs 320.
• ROPs: 16 vs 128.
• Tensor cores: none vs 640.
• Pixel rate: 17.98 GPixel/s vs 186.2 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 44.96 GTexel/s vs 465.6 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1,438.7 GFLOPS vs 14.90 TFLOPS.
• FP16: not listed vs 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: 68 W vs 250 W.
• Slot width: single-slot vs dual-slot.
• Power connectors: none vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 600 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1).
• Length: 202 mm (8 inches) vs 267 mm (10.5 inches).
• Height: 111 mm (4.4 inches) vs 112 mm (4.4 inches).
• Width: not listed vs 40 mm (1.6 inches).
• Release date: 2014-07-21 vs 2018-06-20.
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi vs GeForce 900.
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell vs GeForce 20.

The only matching specification fields are the manufacturer (NVIDIA), the foundry (TSMC), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, production status (end-of-life), and height (111 mm vs 112 mm, effectively the same).

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual split between theoretical capability and recorded benchmark performance. The TITAN V CEO Edition has overwhelming advantages in compute resources, memory bandwidth, and raw throughput: 8 times the shading units, more than 10 times the memory bandwidth, and an FP32 rating of 14.90 TFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro. It also adds 640 tensor cores and support for FP16 at 29.80 TFLOPS, features the Quadro does not have at all. For workloads that use those capabilities, the TITAN V is the obvious choice based on the specification sheet.

However, the database's aggregate benchmark score tells a different story. The Quadro K2200 averages 10761, which is roughly 19% higher than the TITAN V's 9037. The Quadro also sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, four points higher than the TITAN V's 45th percentile. Its nearest rivals are consistently stronger: the Quadro trades blows with the AMD Radeon Pro 450 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, while the TITAN V's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and the AMD Radeon 550X. That means a buyer relying purely on the recorded benchmark scores would see the Quadro as the better performing card in the tested workloads.

The explanation likely lies in the nature of the recorded tests. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 11431 and Vulkan score of 10090 are solid results for its class. The TITAN V's Passmark scores, with a G3D result of 16988, are high in absolute terms, but the average benchmark score is dragged down by the G2D result of 1086. The database does not include a shared head-to-head benchmark between the two, so the comparison is indirect. The TITAN V's theoretical peak performance may not be expressed in the specific tests used to generate the average score, particularly if those tests do not stress tensor cores or FP16 throughput.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the decision hinges on workload. The Quadro K2200 is a low-power, single-slot professional card with no power connectors and a 68 W TDP, suitable for systems with minimal power delivery and limited space, and it delivers the higher average benchmark score in the database. The TITAN V CEO Edition is a dual-slot, 250 W card requiring a 600 W PSU and both 6-pin and 8-pin connectors, but it offers 32 GB of HBM2 memory, PCIe 3.0, and a massive compute pipeline including tensor cores and FP16 support. The data supports picking the Quadro for the better recorded aggregate performance per the database, and the TITAN V for raw specification-driven workloads, especially those involving large memory footprints or tensor operations. Neither card is in production, so availability is secondary to matching the hardware to the task.