NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. That places the Quadro P2200 67.8% ahead of the Tesla C2075 in this workload. The margin is vast, and it is not a narrow win on a single metric that could be dismissed as workload-specific noise. OpenCL exercises general compute across memory subsystems, shader units, and driver stacks, so the magnitude of the gap reflects a fundamental difference in execution capability between the two generations.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 10,400 places it within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, within 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A, and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, is 1.7% ahead. The Tesla C2075 is therefore clustered tightly with mid-range mobile and low-end desktop parts of later generations. The Quadro P2200, by contrast, holds the 44th percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 8,686 when including its entire suite of recorded benchmarks. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 0.7% ahead and the AMD FirePro W5170M at 1.1% behind.

The single head-to-head result is enough to define the relationship between these two cards. The Quadro P2200 does not merely edge out the Tesla C2075; it dominates it in raw OpenCL throughput. The delta of 67.8% is large enough to be considered a generational leap rather than a product-tier difference. The Tesla C2075 was designed for a different era of computing, and the data reflects that.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla C2075 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison. The database records one head-to-head benchmark, and the Quadro P2200 wins it outright. That does not mean the Tesla C2075 is without any redeeming characteristics, but within the measured data, there is no workload where it outperforms the Quadro P2200.

The Quadro P2200 wins on Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 32,344 versus 10,400. It also carries a much larger set of recorded benchmark results beyond that single test. The database lists PassMark DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute scores for the Quadro P2200. In PassMark G3D, it records 9,364. In PassMark GPU compute, it records 3,921. Its DirectX 9 score is 167, DirectX 10 is 45, DirectX 11 is 70, DirectX 12 is 33, and G2D is 881. The Tesla C2075 has no corresponding PassMark entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible on those tests.

The Tesla C2075 does have a higher pixel rate and texture rate than the Quadro P2200 in raw specifications. The Tesla C2075 delivers 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. The Quadro P2200 delivers 59.72 GPixel/s and 119.4 GTexel/s. The Quadro P2200 is ahead on both metrics. The Tesla C2075 also has more memory capacity at 6 GB versus 5 GB, and a wider memory bus at 384 bit versus 160 bit. However, the Quadro P2200 has substantially higher memory bandwidth at 200.2 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s, because its GDDR5X memory operates at a much higher effective data rate of 10 Gbps versus 3.1 Gbps.

For compute-heavy tasks, the Quadro P2200 is the clear winner in the recorded data. For legacy compatibility, the Tesla C2075 might still be relevant in older systems, but the database shows no scenario where it wins a measured benchmark against the Quadro P2200.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different NVIDIA architectures. The Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, part of the Tesla Fermi generation. The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip based on the Pascal architecture, part of the Quadro Pascal generation. The Fermi architecture dates back to 2011, while the Pascal-based Quadro P2200 was released in 2019. The process node difference is dramatic: the Tesla C2075 is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro P2200 is fabricated on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This node shrink is the foundation for nearly every other difference between the two cards.

The transistor count tells an interesting story. The Tesla C2075 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro P2200 packs 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro P2200 fits 46.7% more transistors into a die that is less than half the size. This is a direct consequence of the 40 nm versus 16 nm process gap.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The Quadro P2200 has nearly three times as many shading units and more TMUs, although the Tesla C2075 has more ROPs. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the Tesla C2075 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while the Quadro P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS, which is roughly 3.7 times higher. The Quadro P2200 also records an FP16 figure of 59.72 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Tesla C2075 has no FP16 entry in the database.

Memory architecture is another clear dividing line. The Tesla C2075 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, with memory clocked at 783 MHz for an effective data rate of 3.1 Gbps and bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s. The Quadro P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160 bit bus, with memory clocked at 1251 MHz for an effective data rate of 10 Gbps and bandwidth of 200.2 GB/s. The Quadro P2200 achieves 33% more bandwidth despite a much narrower bus, thanks to the higher memory data rate.

The feature sets also differ in practical ways. The Tesla C2075 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry. The Quadro P2200 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro P2200 has a higher DirectX feature level and adds Vulkan support, which matters for modern applications and workloads that rely on newer graphics APIs.

Power and physical design are also starkly different. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The suggested power supply is 550 W. The Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W, uses a single-slot cooler, requires no power connectors, and only needs a 250 W power supply. The Quadro P2200 is also shorter at 201 mm (7.9 inches) versus 248 mm (9.8 inches) for the Tesla C2075, and it has a defined height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) while the Tesla C2075 has no height listed.

The bus interface differs as well. The Tesla C2075 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro P2200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are limited on the Tesla C2075 to a single DVI port, while the Quadro P2200 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For any modern workstation setup requiring multiple displays or high refresh rates, the Quadro P2200 has a clear connectivity advantage.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life. The Tesla C2075 was released in July 2011 and has a predecessor simply named Tesla, with a successor in Tesla Kepler. The Quadro P2200 was released in June 2019 and has a predecessor in Quadro Maxwell and a successor in Quadro Volta. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 32,344 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 scores 10,400. The Quadro P2200 is 67.8% ahead.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory. The Tesla C2075 has more capacity, but the Quadro P2200 has higher memory bandwidth at 200.2 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s.

Q: What architecture does each card use?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF110 chip on a 40 nm process. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 has 1,280 shading units, compared to 448 shading units on the NVIDIA Tesla C2075. The Quadro P2200 also has higher FP32 throughput at 3.822 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W, uses a single-slot cooler, and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support listed in the database. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro P2200 also has a higher DirectX feature level of 12_1 versus 11_0.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior card in nearly every measurable way. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 67.8%. It has more shading units, higher FP32 throughput, higher memory bandwidth, a smaller die on a more advanced process, a lower TDP, a single-slot cooler with no external power connectors, more display outputs, and support for modern APIs including Vulkan and DirectX 12_1.

The Tesla C2075 retains a few specification advantages. It has more memory capacity at 6 GB versus 5 GB, a wider memory bus at 384 bit versus 160 bit, and more ROPs at 48 versus 40. These are narrow wins, and they do not translate into any recorded benchmark victory. The wider bus does not compensate for the lower memory data rate, and the extra ROP count does not overcome the massive gap in shading units and FP32 throughput.

For anyone choosing between these two cards based on the recorded data, the Quadro P2200 is the clear pick. It delivers roughly 3.7 times the FP32 compute, 33% more memory bandwidth, and it does so at a third of the power draw. The Tesla C2075 is an end-of-life product from 2011 with no benchmark wins in the database. The Quadro P2200, while also end-of-life, is a much more capable and efficient card that should handle compute workloads, professional graphics tasks, and modern API-based applications far better.

The only scenario where the Tesla C2075 might be considered is if a system absolutely requires 6 GB of memory in a specific legacy application or if the wider 384 bit memory bus is somehow essential. The database does not contain a benchmark that demonstrates any advantage from those specifications, so any such choice would be based on requirements outside the measured data. Within the recorded metrics, the Quadro P2200 is the definitive winner.