NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

NVIDIA Tesla M10 and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 are both end-of-life professional accelerators, but they are built for entirely different workloads. The recorded data shows the Quadro P2200 dominates in compute benchmarks, while the Tesla M10’s higher memory capacity and Maxwell-era design point toward a legacy virtualization role. The average benchmark score for the Tesla M10 is 9724, placing it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P2200 averages 8686, at the 44th percentile. However, the head-to-head results are decisively one-sided: the P2200 wins both recorded tests, with a 68.1% lead in OpenCL and a 70.9% lead in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 32344 against the Tesla M10’s 10318, a 68.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P2200 scores 31351 versus 9130, a 70.9% lead. These are not marginal differences; the P2200 more than triples the M10’s output in both metrics. The P2200 also holds a full suite of DirectX and Passmark results, including a Passmark G3D score of 9364 and a GPU compute score of 3921, while the M10 has no such entries in the database.

The Tesla M10’s only advantage in the recorded data is memory capacity. It offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X. For workloads that require large data sets to reside locally, the M10’s extra 3 GB could be relevant, but this is not reflected in any benchmark score. The M10 also has no display outputs, while the P2200 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, making the P2200 the only one of the two that can drive monitors directly.

The P2200 wins on every measured performance metric. The M10’s percentile rank (47th) is slightly higher than the P2200’s (44th), but that is an artifact of the M10 being compared against a different set of rivals. The M10’s nearest rivals include the Quadro P4000 (delta 0.6%) and GeForce GTX 1070 (delta -0.6%), while the P2200 sits near the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (delta -0.7%) and Intel Arc A380 (delta 1.5%). The P2200 is the faster card in absolute terms, regardless of its lower percentile.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla M10 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Quadro P2200 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip on a 16 nm process, also from TSMC. It contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 22.0M per mm². The P2200’s newer node and larger transistor count enable substantially higher compute capability.

The shading unit count differs sharply: the M10 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The P2200 doubles the M10 in each of these categories. The P2200 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the M10 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture reflects the generation gap. The M10 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 83.20 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s bandwidth. The P2200’s memory runs at 10 Gbps effective, while the M10’s runs at 5.2 Gbps effective. Despite having less capacity, the P2200’s bandwidth is 2.4 times higher.

The P2200’s FP32 throughput is 3.822 TFLOPS, more than double the M10’s 1.672 TFLOPS. The pixel rate is 59.72 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 119.4 GTexel/s versus 52.24 GTexel/s. The P2200 also has a FP16 rate of 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64), which the M10 lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest single recorded win for the Quadro P2200. It scores 32344, compared to the Tesla M10’s 10318, a delta of -68.1% from the M10’s perspective. The P2200 is 3.13 times faster in this test. This aligns with the P2200’s doubling of shading units and FP32 throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger relative gap. The P2200 scores 31351, while the M10 scores 9130, a delta of -70.9%. The P2200 is 3.43 times faster. Vulkan performance is often limited by geometry and driver efficiency, and the Pascal generation’s improved command processor likely contributes to this margin.

The M10 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 2, meaning the P2200 wins every comparison where both have data. This is a one-sided matchup. The M10’s nearest rivals include the Tesla C2070 (delta 0.1%) and Quadro P4000 (delta 0.6%), but those scores are closer to the M10’s own average, not to the P2200’s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. Process node: 28 nm for the M10, 16 nm for the P2200. Transistors: 1,870 million versus 4,400 million. Die size: 148 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² versus 22.0M / mm². Base clock: 1033 MHz versus 1000 MHz, but boost clock: 1306 MHz versus 1493 MHz. Memory clock: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) versus 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Memory size: 8 GB versus 5 GB. Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR5X. Bus width: 128 bit versus 160 bit. Bandwidth: 83.20 GB/s versus 200.2 GB/s. Shading units: 640 versus 1280. TMUs: 40 versus 80. ROPs: 16 versus 40. Pixel rate: 20.90 GPixel/s versus 59.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 52.24 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 1.672 TFLOPS versus 3.822 TFLOPS. FP16: absent versus 59.72 GFLOPS. TDP: 225 W versus 75 W. Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus None. Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 250 W. Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX version: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1). Length: 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 201 mm (7.9 inches). The P2200 also has a recorded height of 111 mm (4.4 inches); the M10’s height is not listed. Release dates: May 2016 for the M10, June 2019 for the P2200. Predecessors: Tesla Kepler versus Quadro Maxwell. Successors: Tesla Pascal versus Quadro Volta.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute performance?

A: The Quadro P2200. Its FP32 rate is 3.822 TFLOPS versus the Tesla M10’s 1.672 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2200 scores 32344 against 10318, a 68.1% lead.

Q: Does the Tesla M10 have any advantage over the Quadro P2200?

A: Yes, in memory capacity. The M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X. No benchmark in the database measures this capacity advantage, so its practical impact is not quantified.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the Quadro P2200. It has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla M10 has no display outputs, indicating a server or compute-only role.

Q: How do the cards compare in power requirements?

A: The Tesla M10 has a TDP of 225 W and needs a 550 W suggested PSU with a 1x 8-pin power connector. The Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W, a 250 W suggested PSU, and requires no power connector.

Q: Which card is larger physically?

A: The Tesla M10 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) and dual-slot. The Quadro P2200 is 201 mm (7.9 inches) long, single-slot, and has a recorded height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Q: Which card has higher Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P2200. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 31351, while the Tesla M10 scores 9130, a 70.9% difference.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior choice for any compute-oriented workload. The data shows it wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks by overwhelming margins: 68.1% in OpenCL and 70.9% in Vulkan. Its FP32 throughput of 3.822 TFLOPS is more than double the M10’s 1.672 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is 200.2 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s. The P2200 also offers display outputs, a lower power draw (75 W versus 225 W), and a smaller single-slot footprint. It is the card to pick for current or future professional tasks that rely on compute or graphics output.

The Tesla M10’s only recorded advantage is its 8 GB memory capacity, which exceeds the P2200’s 5 GB. This might matter for data-resident workloads, but no benchmark score in the database reflects such a benefit. The M10’s nearest rivals, such as the Quadro P4000 (delta 0.6%) and Tesla C2070 (delta 0.1%), are comparable in average score, but none approach the P2200’s raw performance. The M10 is a legacy product from 2016, built on 28 nm Maxwell, and its role is likely limited to older virtualization deployments where large memory pools are more important than speed.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the Quadro P2200 is the definitive pick. It delivers 3.4 times the Vulkan score, 3.1 times the OpenCL score, and doubles the shading units, all while consuming one-third the power. The Tesla M10 should only be considered if the 8 GB memory capacity is a hard requirement, and even then, the P2200’s performance lead makes it the stronger option in every measured test.