NVIDIA Quadro K5100M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two professional mobile and desktop GPUs into distinct usage profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins no recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 takes the single overlapping test outright. However, the absence of wins for the K5100M does not mean it lacks utility; its profile leans on legacy compute workloads where its Kepler architecture and 8 GB frame buffer remain relevant.

The K5100M offers a higher average benchmark score in the database at 10043, placing it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it, with the AMD Radeon R9 M375 just 0.3% lower, the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M 0.3% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M 0.8% ahead. This suggests the K5100M sits in a competitive band where small percentage differences separate cards. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11771 and Geekbench Metal score of 8315 indicate moderate compute throughput that aligns with its 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 rating. The 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which favors workloads with large datasets that fit in memory but do not require extreme transfer speeds.

The Quadro P2200, by contrast, posts a lower average benchmark score of 8686, sitting in the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 0.7% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 0.7% higher, the AMD FirePro W5170M at 1.1% lower, and the Intel Arc A380 at 1.5% lower. The P2200 wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 32344 against the K5100M's 11771, a 63.6% margin in its favor. Beyond that single test, the P2200 demonstrates broad API support with DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, making it the more versatile option for modern graphics workloads. Its Passmark results show strong DirectX 9 performance at 167, moderate DirectX 11 at 70, and lower DirectX 10 and 12 scores at 45 and 33 respectively. The Passmark G3D score of 9364 and GPU compute score of 3921 further characterize its strengths in rasterization and compute tasks.

The use-case split is clear. The K5100M targets legacy professional environments where 8 GB of memory and compatibility with older software stacks matter more than raw throughput. The P2200 targets contemporary workflows across CAD, simulation, and content creation where higher FP32 compute, faster memory, and modern API support translate into tangible performance gains. For users running current software that leverages Vulkan or DirectX 12, the P2200 is the decisive choice. For users constrained to older applications or needing maximum frame buffer capacity, the K5100M retains a niche.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10043, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 has an average benchmark score of 8686. The K5100M also sits at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, four points higher than the P2200's 44th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro P2200 scores 32344, while the Quadro K5100M scores 11771. The P2200 leads by 63.6% in this benchmark, which is the only head-to-head test recorded in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the maximum DirectX support for each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the K5100M's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 3.822 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, substantially higher than the Quadro K5100M's 2.369 TFLOPS. The P2200 also has higher pixel and texture rates at 59.72 GPixel/s and 119.4 GTexel/s respectively, compared to 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s for the K5100M.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no external power connectors. The Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct comparison between these two GPUs, but that single result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2200 scores 32344 against the Quadro K5100M's 11771. The 63.6% delta in favor of the P2200 represents a substantial generational leap in compute throughput. This margin dwarfs the differences seen in either card's nearest rival comparisons, where individual deltas rarely exceed 2%. The P2200's advantage stems from its higher FP32 throughput, 3.822 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS, and its faster memory subsystem, 200.2 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, despite having a narrower 160-bit bus compared to the K5100M's 256-bit bus.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, the two cards diverge in their broader benchmark profiles. The K5100M posts a Geekbench Metal score of 8315, a test absent from the P2200's recorded results. The P2200, meanwhile, has a full suite of Passmark scores including DirectX 9 at 167, DirectX 11 at 70, DirectX 10 at 45, DirectX 12 at 33, G2D at 881, G3D at 9364, and GPU compute at 3921. These numbers indicate the P2200 excels in legacy DirectX 9 workloads while maintaining respectable modern API performance. The K5100M's lack of Passmark data limits direct comparison in those tests, but its Geekbench OpenCL result is less than half that of the P2200 in raw terms.

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story. The K5100M's 48th percentile and average score of 10043 place it slightly ahead of the P2200's 44th percentile and 8686 average, yet the head-to-head result favors the P2200 overwhelmingly. This apparent contradiction resolves when accounting for the different benchmark suites each card supports. The K5100M's recorded tests may not stress the same compute paths that the P2200 handles efficiently. The P2200's nearest rivals, including the GeForce GTX 460 v2 and RTX 3050 A Mobile, have average scores within 0.7% of its own, indicating tight competition in its performance class. The K5100M's rivals, such as the Radeon R9 M375 and Radeon Pro 5300M, similarly cluster within 0.3% to 0.8%, showing that both cards compete in crowded segments where small margins separate adjacent products.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification category. The K5100M uses a 28 nm process node, while the P2200 uses a 16 nm node, both from TSMC. Transistor counts differ as well: the K5100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the P2200 integrates 4,400 million transistors on a smaller 200 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² for the K5100M and 22.0M per mm² for the P2200, reflecting the denser manufacturing process of the newer card.

Clock speeds show a significant gap. The K5100M runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with no boost, meaning its maximum clock equals its base clock. The P2200 runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boosts to 1493 MHz, a 49.3% boost headroom. Memory clocks also differ: the K5100M's GDDR5 runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective data rate, while the P2200's GDDR5X runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective. The memory configuration diverges in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth: 8 GB on a 256-bit bus delivering 115.2 GB/s for the K5100M versus 5 GB on a 160-bit bus delivering 200.2 GB/s for the P2200. The P2200 achieves higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus due to its faster memory technology.

Compute unit counts differ as well. The K5100M has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders and TMUs, the P2200 produces higher pixel and texture rates due to its clock advantage: 59.72 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s, and 119.4 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the P2200 at 3.822 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS, and the P2200 additionally lists FP16 performance of 59.72 GFLOPS, a figure absent for the K5100M.

Form factor and interface differences are equally pronounced. The K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and an MXM module slot width, making it suitable for laptops and portable workstations. The P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and a single-slot design with dimensions of 201 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K5100M's display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the P2200 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Power profiles differ with the K5100M at 100 W TDP and the P2200 at 75 W TDP, with the P2200 listing a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K5100M released on July 22, 2013, while the P2200 launched on June 9, 2019, and both are now end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these GPUs spans generations. The K5100M is built on Kepler, using the GK104 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. The P2200 is built on Pascal, using the GP106 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px200) generation. Kepler represents an older design philosophy focused on balancing power efficiency with compute capability, while Pascal introduces significant improvements in clock scaling and memory efficiency.

The manufacturing processes reflect this generational gap. The K5100M uses TSMC's 28 nm node, which was standard for high-performance GPUs in its era. The P2200 uses TSMC's 16 nm node, enabling higher transistor density, 22.0M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm², and substantially higher clock speeds. The P2200's boost clock of 1493 MHz versus the K5100M's fixed 771 MHz demonstrates Pascal's superior power efficiency and thermal headroom, allowing the newer card to achieve nearly double the clock frequency while consuming 25 W less power.

Memory architecture also reflects the generational shift. The K5100M uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, a configuration that prioritized capacity and bus width for large professional datasets. The P2200 uses GDDR5X with a 160-bit bus, trading bus width for faster signaling rates. This results in the P2200 delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth, 85 GB/s more than the K5100M, while using 3 GB less capacity. The shift from 8 GB to 5 GB suggests a change in workload priorities, moving from memory-heavy legacy applications to compute-driven modern workflows.

API support further distinguishes the two architectures. The K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a partial implementation of the modern API, along with Vulkan 1.2.175 and OpenGL 4.6. The P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), the full feature level, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The K5100M's lower Vulkan version and reduced DirectX feature level limit its compatibility with newer graphics applications that rely on advanced rendering features. The P2200 also includes FP16 compute at 59.72 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a capability not listed for the K5100M, which matters for workloads that utilize mixed-precision arithmetic.

The production timeline highlights the architectural leap. The K5100M's predecessor was Quadro Fermi-M and its successor was Quadro Maxwell-M, placing it in a transitional period for NVIDIA's mobile professional lineup. The P2200's predecessor was Quadro Maxwell and its successor was Quadro Volta, showing a direct lineage toward NVIDIA's later tensor-core architectures. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, but the P2200's Pascal architecture provides a foundation for features that later generations would expand upon. The K5100M's Kepler architecture, while capable, lacks the modern feature set and efficiency gains that Pascal introduced, making the P2200 the more future-proof option within the constraints of these two end-of-life products.