NVIDIA Quadro K4100M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2200 records an average benchmark score of 8686, while the Quadro K4100M sits at 7906. This places the P2200 roughly 9.9% higher in aggregate performance, and its percentile rank among all GPUs is 44 compared to 41 for the K4100M.

Q: Which card wins the only head-to-head benchmark available in the database?

A: The database contains one direct head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P2200 scores 32344 versus 9149 for the K4100M, a decisive 253.5% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 102.4 GB/s.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute throughput (FP32)?

A: The Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro K4100M achieves 1.627 TFLOPS. The P2200 is more than twice as fast in this metric.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate and texture fill rate?

A: The Quadro P2200 leads in both: 59.72 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s for pixel rate, and 119.4 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s for texture rate.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro P2200 was released in June 2019, while the Quadro K4100M was released in July 2013.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior card in every measurable category. Its average benchmark score of 8686 outstrips the K4100M's 7906, its percentile ranking is higher at 44 versus 41, and in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, it wins by 253.5%. There is no benchmark in the database where the K4100M wins.

For users running OpenCL-accelerated workloads, this is not a close contest. The P2200's 32344 score versus 9149 represents a generational leap, not an incremental improvement. For anyone deciding between these two for compute tasks, the P2200 is the only rational choice.

The K4100M does retain one distinction: it was released with a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, and it is an MXM module, meaning it was designed for portable workstations. If the requirement is a drop-in MXM replacement for an older laptop, the K4100M is the only one of the two that fits that form factor. However, that is a compatibility consideration, not a performance one.

Professionals seeking maximum compute performance, memory bandwidth, and modern API support should select the Quadro P2200. Those constrained to an MXM socket in an older portable workstation may have no choice but the K4100M, but they should expect significantly lower performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is lopsided. The Quadro P2200 scores 32344, while the Quadro K4100M scores 9149. The delta is 253.5% in favor of the P2200.

To put that number in context, the K4100M would need to more than triple its score to match the P2200. This is not a marginal win; it reflects the architectural and process-node gap between the two cards.

Beyond the direct comparison, the overall benchmark averages reinforce the same story. The P2200 has an average score of 8686 across all its recorded tests, which include Geekbench OpenCL (32344), Geekbench Vulkan (31351), Passmark G3D (9364), and Passmark GPU Compute (3921). The K4100M only has two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL (9149) and Geekbench Metal (6662). Its average is 7906.

When comparing the P2200 to its nearest rivals in the database, it sits within 1.5% of the Intel Arc A380 (8558, delta 1.5%) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5170M (8595). The K4100M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039, delta -1.7%) and the GeForce GTX 880M (8040, delta -1.7%), meaning the K4100M trails those cards by about 1.7%.

The Passmark DirectX results for the P2200 show scores of 45 (DX10), 70 (DX11), 33 (DX12), and 167 (DX9), along with a G2D score of 881. These are not comparable to the K4100M, as the database does not list corresponding Passmark results for the older card. The only shared workload is OpenCL, where the P2200 dominates.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The Quadro P2200 uses 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The P2200 has more shaders and ROPs, while the K4100M has more TMUs.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The P2200 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1493 MHz. The K4100M has no boost behavior; both base and boost are pinned at 706 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the P2200's memory runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective data rate, while the K4100M's memory runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity favors the P2200 at 5 GB versus 4 GB. The memory type differs as well: GDDR5X on the P2200, GDDR5 on the K4100M. The bus width favors the K4100M at 256-bit versus 160-bit, but the P2200's higher memory clock and newer memory type yield 200.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s in bandwidth.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The P2200 consumes 75 W TDP and is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The K4100M consumes 100 W TDP and is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The P2200 measures 201 mm by 111 mm, while the K4100M has no recorded dimensions.

Interface and outputs differ: the P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The K4100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and its display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro P2200 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K4100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is a primary driver of the performance gap: the P2200 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The K4100M contains 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, with a density of only 12.0M per mm².

The P2200 belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px200) generation, while the K4100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. The predecessor and successor lines reflect the generational positioning: the P2200 follows the Quadro Maxwell line and is succeeded by Quadro Volta, whereas the K4100M follows Quadro Fermi-M and is succeeded by Quadro Maxwell-M.

API support differs. The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P2200 also supports FP16 compute at 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K4100M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The P2200's pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s and texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s. The K4100M's pixel rate is 16.94 GPixel/s and texture rate is 67.78 GTexel/s. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2200 wins in every performance category recorded in the database. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by the 253.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its higher FP32 throughput (3.822 TFLOPS versus 1.627 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (59.72 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (119.4 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s) make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks.

The P2200 also wins on memory bandwidth at 200.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 5 GB capacity exceeds the K4100M's 4 GB, and its GDDR5X memory type is newer and faster. The P2200's higher percentile rank (44 versus 41) and higher average benchmark score (8686 versus 7906) confirm its overall superiority.

The Quadro K4100M does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only potential advantages are structural: it is an MXM module, making it suitable for portable workstation upgrades, and it has a wider 256-bit memory bus. The wider bus does not translate into higher bandwidth, however, because the K4100M's memory clock is much lower. The K4100M also has more TMUs (96 versus 80), but the P2200's higher clock speeds more than compensate, resulting in a 119.4 GTexel/s texture rate that is nearly double the K4100M's 67.78 GTexel/s.

For any use case involving OpenCL compute, the P2200 is the winner by a wide margin. For users who need a portable MXM card and are restricted to that form factor, the K4100M is the only option of the two, but its performance is substantially lower across the board. The data does not support any scenario where the K4100M outperforms the P2200.