NVIDIA Quadro M2000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M records an average benchmark score of 9832, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 sits lower at 8686. Despite this, the P2200 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, a distinction that stems from the specific workloads measured.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance, and by how much?

A: The Quadro P2200 dominates the OpenCL test with a score of 32344 against the M2000M's 10057, a delta of -68.9% from the perspective of the M2000M. This is a massive gap in raw compute throughput.

Q: What about Vulkan performance? Is the gap similar?

A: Yes, the pattern repeats. The P2200 scores 31351 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the M2000M manages 9606, resulting in a -69.4% delta. Both APIs show the P2200 roughly tripling the M2000M's output.

Q: Do these GPUs belong to the same architectural generation?

A: No. The M2000M is built on the Maxwell architecture with a GM107 chip, while the P2200 uses the Pascal architecture with a GP106 chip. This is a generational leap, not a minor refresh.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life. The M2000M was released on December 2, 2015, and the P2200 followed on June 9, 2019. Their production status is identical, but their release dates are years apart.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate about these GPUs?

A: The M2000M sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the P2200 is at the 44th percentile. The data suggests that while the P2200 wins in modern compute tests, its overall standing relative to the entire GPU landscape is slightly lower than the M2000M's.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly across test types. The P2200 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, specifically Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, with decisive margins of 68.9% and 69.4% respectively. This indicates a clear advantage in general-purpose compute and graphics API workloads that leverage modern parallel processing.

However, the M2000M holds a higher average benchmark score overall, 9832 versus 8686, and a higher percentile rank at 47 versus 44. This suggests the M2000M performs better relative to its contemporary peers in the database's full suite of recorded tests, even though the only direct comparisons available favor the P2200. The M2000M also has a narrower gap to its nearest rivals, with its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, sitting just 0.1% behind. The P2200's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 460 v2, is 0.7% ahead, meaning the M2000M is more tightly clustered with its peers.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL and Vulkan, the P2200 is the clear pick. For scenarios where the broader average score and percentile placement matter, the M2000M edges ahead. The data does not include any other direct benchmark comparisons, so conclusions beyond these two tests remain limited.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The M2000M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, packing 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The P2200 steps up to the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process, also TSMC, with 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 12.6 million per square millimeter for the M2000M versus 22.0 million for the P2200, a 16 nm density advantage that enables far more compute resources in a similar physical footprint.

The shading unit count jumps from 640 on the M2000M to 1280 on the P2200, exactly double. Texture mapping units go from 40 to 80, and render output units from 16 to 40, a 2.5x increase in the latter. The P2200 also introduces a distinct FP16 capability, listed at 59.72 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the M2000M has no FP16 data recorded. Neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores, so that feature set is absent from both.

The memory subsystem changes completely. The M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus. Effective memory clock doubles from 5 Gbps to 10 Gbps, and bandwidth jumps from 80.19 GB/s to 200.2 GB/s. The bus interface also shifts from MXM-A (3.0) to PCIe 3.0 x16, reflecting a move from mobile module to desktop workstation form factor.

Specification Differences

Focusing only on the fields where the two differ, the list is substantial. Process node: 28 nm versus 16 nm. Transistors: 1,870 million versus 4,400 million. Die size: 148 mm² versus 200 mm². Base clock: 1098 MHz versus 1000 MHz, but boost clock flips the comparison, with the M2000M at 1137 MHz and the P2200 at 1493 MHz. Memory clock is nearly identical at 1253 MHz versus 1251 MHz, but effective data rate doubles from 5 Gbps to 10 Gbps.

Memory size goes from 4 GB to 5 GB, type from GDDR5 to GDDR5X, bus width from 128 bit to 160 bit, and bandwidth from 80.19 GB/s to 200.2 GB/s. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all increase as noted. Pixel rate rises from 18.19 GPixel/s to 59.72 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 45.48 GTexel/s to 119.4 GTexel/s. FP32 output grows from 1,455.4 GFLOPS to 3.822 TFLOPS.

TDP increases from 55 W to 75 W. Slot width changes from MXM Module to Single-slot. Power connectors remain absent on both, but the P2200 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W while the M2000M lists none. Bus interface changes from MXM-A (3.0) to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs go from portable-device-dependent to 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support advances from 12 (11_0) to 12 (12_1). Release dates differ by roughly three and a half years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons in the database are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32344 against the M2000M's 10057. The delta is -68.9% when measured from the M2000M's side, meaning the P2200 delivers more than three times the OpenCL score. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

Geekbench Vulkan follows the same trajectory. The P2200 records 31351, the M2000M 9606, a delta of -69.4%. Again, the P2200 roughly triples the M2000M's result. These two tests cover different API paradigms, OpenCL for general-purpose compute and Vulkan for graphics and compute, and the P2200 wins both by nearly identical margins.

The M2000M has zero wins in the head-to-head set, while the P2200 takes both. There are no other direct benchmark comparisons recorded, so the analysis rests on these two data points plus the broader average and percentile figures. The average benchmark scores tell a different story, with the M2000M ahead at 9832 versus 8686, but that aggregate includes a wider range of tests not directly matched between the two cards.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction for compute-heavy workloads. The Quadro P2200 is the superior choice for OpenCL and Vulkan tasks, where it triples the M2000M's scores. Its higher boost clock, doubled shading units, larger memory bus, and faster GDDR5X all contribute to this outcome. Anyone running modern compute or graphics workloads that leverage these APIs should select the P2200 without hesitation.

The M2000M, however, holds its ground in the aggregate database ranking. Its average score of 9832 exceeds the P2200's 8686, and its 47th percentile placement beats the P2200's 44th. This suggests the M2000M was better positioned relative to the GPU landscape of its era. The M2000M's nearest rivals, such as the Quadro 6000 at -0.1% and the FirePro W5000 at 0.3%, are very close competitors, indicating it sat in a tightly contested performance tier.

For users with legacy workflows that do not stress OpenCL or Vulkan, the M2000M's higher average score may be more relevant. For anyone pushing compute through modern APIs, the P2200 is the definitive answer. The choice depends entirely on workload: the P2200 for raw modern compute, the M2000M for broader historical benchmark standing. The recorded data offers no third path.