NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is decisive. The Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716. That translates to a 70% deficit for the older card, meaning the P2200 delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. In relative terms, the P2200 leads by 233% in OpenCL performance, a gap that reflects not just a generational leap but a complete rethinking of GPU architecture.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Tesla C2070 sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9,716. Its closest competitors are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 9,665 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9,653 (0.7% behind). The GeForce GTX 1070 is 0.7% ahead at 9,780. This places the C2070 in a narrow band of mid-range performers from its era, but the P2200, despite sitting at the 44th percentile overall, pulls far ahead in this head-to-head because its average score of 8,686 is dragged down by other benchmark categories. In OpenCL specifically, the P2200 is not merely better; it is in a different performance class.

The P2200 also has a Vulkan score of 31,351 in the database, a test the C2070 has no recorded entry for. This is notable because the C2070 lists Vulkan as unsupported in its API table, while the P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4. The OpenCL result alone, however, is sufficient to establish the hierarchy: the P2200 wins the only common test, and it wins by an enormous margin.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full architecture generations. The Tesla C2070 is built on Fermi, using the GF100 chip, while the Quadro P2200 uses Pascal with the GP106 chip. The process node tells a large part of the story: the C2070 uses TSMC's 40 nm process, while the P2200 uses TSMC's 16 nm process. This shrink allowed NVIDIA to pack 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die on the P2200, versus 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die for the C2070. The transistor density figures make the difference stark: the P2200 achieves 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter, while the C2070 manages only 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is nearly a fourfold density improvement, which explains how the newer card can offer more shaders and higher clocks while consuming far less power.

Core counts differ substantially. The C2070 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. So the P2200 has 2.86 times the shader count and 1.43 times the texture units, though it has 8 fewer ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the P2200 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1493 MHz, while the C2070 lists no base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks differ as well: the C2070's GDDR5 memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the P2200's GDDR5X runs at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are built differently. The C2070 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, yet achieves 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The narrower bus is more than compensated by the faster memory type and higher clock, giving the P2200 a 39.6% bandwidth advantage. The API support also diverges: the C2070 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan; the P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2200 wins the only direct comparison available. In OpenCL, it is 70% ahead of the C2070, which is not a marginal victory but a dominant one. The P2200 also offers Vulkan support, a feature the C2070 lacks entirely, making it the only choice for modern Vulkan-based workloads. Its higher pixel rate (59.72 GPixel/s vs. 16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (119.4 GTexel/s vs. 32.14 GTexel/s) indicate superior fill-rate performance, which matters for graphics-heavy tasks like rendering or high-resolution display output. The P2200 also has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, supporting multiple high-resolution displays, while the C2070 has a single DVI output.

The C2070, however, retains its own advantages. Its 6 GB memory capacity exceeds the P2200's 5 GB, which can matter for certain large datasets that must reside in VRAM. Its 384-bit memory bus is wider, and while it does not translate to higher bandwidth here, it does reflect a design aimed at high-throughput compute workloads. The C2070's compute-oriented heritage (the Tesla line was designed for scientific and HPC tasks) means it may still be relevant for legacy applications that do not benefit from the newer architecture's optimizations. Its ROP count is higher (48 vs. 40), which could slightly benefit certain rasterization tasks, though the P2200's much higher clock speeds likely erase that advantage in practice.

The P2200 wins on power efficiency, a crucial factor for any deployment. Its TDP is 75 W versus 238 W for the C2070, meaning it draws 68% less power while delivering far more performance. It also requires no external power connectors, while the C2070 needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the P2200 is 250 W, versus 550 W for the C2070. This makes the P2200 suitable for systems with modest power supplies and limited cooling, whereas the C2070 demands a beefier platform.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla C2070 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |

| Chip | GF100 | GP106 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1493 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 56 | 80 |

| ROPs | 48 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 238 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2011-07-24 | 2019-06-09 |

| Generation | Tesla Fermi (x20xx) | Quadro Pascal (Px200) |

| Predecessor | Tesla | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Tesla Kepler | Quadro Volta |

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is 70% ahead of the Tesla C2070, scoring 32,344 versus 9,716 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Does the Tesla C2070 support Vulkan?

A: No. The C2070 lists no Vulkan support in the database, while the P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Vulkan score of 31,351.

Q: How much power does each card draw?

A: The Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W and requires a 550 W PSU, while the Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W and requires a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P2200, with 200.2 GB/s, exceeds the Tesla C2070's 143.4 GB/s despite using a narrower 160-bit bus versus the C2070's 384-bit bus.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The Tesla C2070 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, compared to 448 on the Tesla C2070, a 2.86x increase.