NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000. The P5000 wins 7 of the 9 head-to-head comparisons, but the P2200 secures two decisive victories that shift the narrative. The most striking result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P2200 scores 31,351 against the P5000's 6,342. That is a 394.3% advantage — the largest margin in either direction across the entire test suite. This is not a marginal edge; it suggests the P2200's driver stack or hardware scheduling handles Vulkan workloads with exceptional efficiency relative to its larger sibling.

The P5000's wins, however, are substantial where they matter most. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P5000 posts 52,509 versus the P2200's 32,344, a 38.4% gap. Passmark GPU Compute tells a similar story: 6,508 for the P5000 against 3,921 for the P2200, a 39.8% deficit for the smaller card. These are compute-heavy workloads where raw shading power and memory bandwidth dominate, and the P5000's hardware advantage becomes clear.

DirectX results follow the expected pattern. In Passmark DirectX 10, the P5000 leads 77 to 45, a 41.6% margin. DirectX 11 shows 102 versus 70, a 31.4% gap. DirectX 12 narrows the spread but still favors the P5000: 44 against 33, a 25% difference. DirectX 9 is nearly a dead heat — 170 for the P5000 versus 167 for the P2200, a mere 1.8% edge. Legacy API performance is effectively identical, which is notable given the P5000's larger die and higher clock speeds.

The G3D benchmark, a broad measure of gaming-oriented 3D performance, favors the P5000 at 12,634 versus 9,364. That is a 25.9% lead, consistent with the DirectX results. But the P2200 strikes back in Passmark G2D, a 2D graphics and desktop compositing test. Here the P2200 scores 881 against the P5000's 674, a 30.7% advantage. This is counterintuitive for a smaller, lower-power card, but the data is unambiguous.

What do these numbers mean in context? The P2200's average benchmark score is 8,686, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743 (-0.7%) and the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (-0.7%). The P5000, despite its higher peak scores, averages 8,039 — the 41st percentile — with its nearest rival being the GeForce GTX 880M at an identical 8,040 (0% delta). This is a crucial nuance: the P5000 wins most head-to-head tests decisively, but its average score across all benchmarks is dragged down by the Vulkan anomaly and the G2D shortfall.

The wins distribution — 2 for the P2200, 7 for the P5000 — reflects aggregate performance, but the magnitude of the P2200's Vulkan victory (394.3%) is so extreme that it skews any simple win-count interpretation. The P5000's largest single win is 41.6% in DirectX 10; the P2200's largest is nearly ten times that. For users targeting Vulkan-based applications, the P2200 is not just competitive — it is dominant. For everything else, the P5000 holds the edge.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the default choice for compute-heavy and DirectX-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509 is 38.4% ahead of the P2200, and its Passmark GPU Compute lead of 39.8% reinforces this. Professionals running OpenCL acceleration, rendering tasks, or DirectX 11/12 applications will see measurably better performance from the P5000. The P5000 also carries 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth, versus the P2200's 5 GB on a 160-bit bus at 200.2 GB/s. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, that memory capacity difference is decisive.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200, however, is the surprise pick for Vulkan-centric workflows. Its 31,351 Geekbench Vulkan score crushes the P5000's 6,342 by 394.3%. If your application stack is built on Vulkan — modern game engines, certain CAD viewports, or Vulkan-based compute — the P2200 delivers performance that the P5000 cannot match, at a fraction of the power draw. The P2200 also wins the G2D test with 881 versus 674, a 30.7% margin, making it the better choice for 2D-heavy desktop workloads or multi-monitor productivity setups where 3D acceleration is secondary.

The average benchmark scores tell a cautionary tale. The P5000's 8,039 average is actually lower than the P2200's 8,686, despite the P5000 winning the majority of individual tests. This is because the P5000's Vulkan score is catastrophically low relative to its other results, dragging its average down. The P2200's average of 8,686 places it in the 44th percentile, while the P5000 sits at the 41st. If you rely on aggregate benchmarks as a proxy for real-world versatility, the P2200 is the safer bet.

Which should you pick? Strictly from the data: choose the P5000 for OpenCL, DirectX, and compute-heavy professional workloads where its 38-42% performance margins translate directly to faster job completion. Choose the P2200 for Vulkan-based applications, 2D-centric workflows, or scenarios where the 75 W TDP and single-slot form factor are critical constraints — the P5000 requires 180 W, a dual-slot footprint, and a 1x 8-pin power connector. The P5000's launch MSRP is 2,499 USD, but pricing considerations aside, the architectural trade-offs are clear.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins 7 of 9 head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins 2. However, the P2200's Vulkan victory is by a 394.3% margin, which is far larger than any single P5000 win (max 41.6% in DirectX 10).

Q: Why does the P2200 have a higher average benchmark score than the P5000?

A: The P2200 averages 8,686 across all benchmark entries, while the P5000 averages 8,039. The P5000's extremely low Geekbench Vulkan score (6,342 versus the P2200's 31,351) pulls its average down despite winning the majority of tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The P5000 is significantly faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 52,509 against the P2200's 32,344. That is a 38.4% advantage for the P5000, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated workloads.

Q: Is the P2200 better for any benchmark category?

A: Yes. The P2200 wins Geekbench Vulkan (31,351 vs 6,342, a 394.3% lead) and Passmark G2D (881 vs 674, a 30.7% lead). These are the only two categories where it outperforms the P5000.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The P2200 ranks in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the P5000 ranks in the 41st. This means the P2200 sits slightly higher in the overall distribution of GPU scores, consistent with its higher average benchmark score.

Q: Are the DirectX performance gaps consistent across versions?

A: Not entirely. The P5000 leads in all DirectX tests, but the margin shrinks with newer API versions: 41.6% in DirectX 10, 31.4% in DirectX 11, 25% in DirectX 12, and only 1.8% in DirectX 9. The P5000's advantage narrows as the API becomes more modern.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every hardware specification. The P2200 uses the GP106 chip, while the P5000 uses the GP104. Both are built on TSMC's 16 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the P2200 packs 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the P5000 has 7,200 million on a 314 mm² die. Transistor density is similar — 22.0M per mm² for the P2200 versus 22.9M per mm² for the P5000 — indicating the process node is identical.

Clock speeds favor the P5000 significantly. The P5000 runs at a 1607 MHz base clock and 1733 MHz boost, compared to the P2200's 1000 MHz base and 1493 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the P2200 runs at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the P5000 runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the P5000 achieves higher bandwidth — 288.5 GB/s versus 200.2 GB/s — because of its wider 256-bit bus compared to the P2200's 160-bit bus.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator. The P2200 offers 5 GB of GDDR5X, while the P5000 offers 16 GB of the same memory type. Compute resources scale accordingly: the P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs; the P5000 doubles the shading units to 2,560 and TMUs to 160, with ROPs increased to 64. Pixel rate jumps from 59.72 GPixel/s on the P2200 to 110.9 GPixel/s on the P5000. Texture rate rises from 119.4 GTexel/s to 277.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput more than doubles, from 3.822 TFLOPS to 8.873 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge dramatically. The P2200 is a 75 W single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring only a 250 W suggested PSU. The P5000 draws 180 W, occupies a dual-slot form factor, needs a 1x 8-pin power connector, and demands a 450 W suggested PSU. The P2200 measures 201 mm in length; the P5000 extends to 267 mm. Both cards are 111 mm in height and use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Display outputs are similar but not identical. The P2200 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P5000 provides 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, adding legacy DVI connectivity. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores. The P2200 was released in June 2019, while the P5000 came out in September 2016. Both are end-of-life, and both list the same predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta).

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Pascal architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The fundamental architecture is the same, but the implementation differs in scale. The P2200 uses the GP106 chip, a mid-range Pascal die, while the P5000 uses the GP104, a higher-tier Pascal part. This explains the transistor count difference: 4,400 million for the P2200 versus 7,200 million for the P5000.

The die size difference is substantial — 200 mm² for the P2200 versus 314 mm² for the P5000 — but transistor density is nearly identical (22.0M vs 22.9M per mm²), confirming that both are built on the same process with the same design rules. The P5000 simply scales up the same architecture with more of everything.

Cache hierarchies and internal scheduling units are not specified in the data, but the shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts tell the architectural story. The P5000 has exactly double the shading units and TMUs of the P2200, and 60% more ROPs. This 2:1 ratio in compute resources explains the P5000's ~2.3x advantage in FP32 throughput (8.873 TFLOPS vs 3.822 TFLOPS). The FP16 performance ratio is similar: 138.6 GFLOPS for the P5000 versus 59.72 GFLOPS for the P2200, both at a 1:64 FP16-to-FP32 ratio.

Memory architecture differs beyond capacity and bus width. The P2200's 160-bit bus is narrower than the P5000's 256-bit bus, and while the P2200 runs faster memory clocks (10 Gbps effective vs 9 Gbps), the wider bus on the P5000 delivers 44% more bandwidth. This bandwidth advantage is critical for the compute-heavy workloads where the P5000 excels.

Feature-wise, both cards support the same API level: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with the Pascal generation's pre-RTX design. The display controller supports DisplayPort 1.4a on both, but the P5000 adds a DVI output — a legacy feature that the P2200 omits.

The generation labels differ subtly: the P2200 belongs to the "Quadro Pascal (Px200)" generation, while the P5000 belongs to "Quadro Pascal (Px000)". Both share the same predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta), indicating they are part of the same architectural generation, differentiated primarily by die size and enabled resources.

The most striking architectural implication is the Vulkan performance discrepancy. Given identical architecture and API support, the 394.3% Vulkan advantage for the P2200 is anomalous. It suggests either a driver optimization quirk specific to the GP106 die, or a benchmark measurement artifact. The data does not explain the cause, but the empirical result is clear: in Vulkan workloads, the smaller, lower-power P2200 is dramatically faster than the P5000.