NVIDIA Quadro P2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 compare to the Quadro P2200 in overall benchmark averages?

A: The P4000 records an average benchmark score of 9665, while the P2200 sits at 8686. That puts the P4000 roughly 11.3% higher, and it places in the 47th percentile of all GPUs versus the P2200's 44th percentile.

Q: Which card wins the most head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The P4000 wins 8 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests. The only test the P2200 takes is Passmark G2D, where it scores 881 versus 786, a 10.8% advantage.

Q: Are there differences in the memory subsystem?

A: Yes. The P4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2200 uses 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus with 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The P2200 boosts to 1493 MHz, slightly above the P4000's 1480 MHz. However, the P4000 has a higher base clock at 1202 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The P4000's GP104 packs 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, while the P2200's GP106 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Both are built on TSMC's 16 nm process.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Pascal architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm node, but they are distinct chips with different scales. The P4000 uses the GP104, a larger design with 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die. The P2200 uses the GP106, which is smaller at 4,400 million transistors and 200 mm². Transistor density is close, 22.9M per mm² for the P4000 and 22.0M per mm² for the P2200, but the raw execution resources differ significantly.

The P4000 fields 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The P2200 is cut down to 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That means the P4000 has 40% more shaders, 40% more TMUs, and 60% more ROPs. These are the structural reasons behind most of the performance deltas in the benchmark data.

Clock behavior is another point of divergence. The P4000 runs a 1202 MHz base clock and a 1480 MHz boost. The P2200 starts lower at 1000 MHz base but boosts slightly higher to 1493 MHz. The higher boost on the P2200 does not compensate for the smaller execution engine, as the recorded scores show.

Memory architecture is also different. The P4000 pairs 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, yielding 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, giving 200.2 GB/s. The memory clocks differ too: the P4000's memory runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the P2200's runs at 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The P2200 uses a faster memory type, but the narrower bus limits total bandwidth.

Power characteristics separate the two as well. The P4000 has a 105 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The P2200 draws only 75 W and needs no power connector, drawing everything from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU rating is 300 W for the P4000 and 250 W for the P2200. Both are single-slot cards, and both output through 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The P4000 is physically longer at 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 201 mm (7.9 inches) for the P2200. Both share the same 111 mm (4.4 inches) height. The P4000 was released in February 2017, while the P2200 came later in June 2019. Both are end-of-life, and both list Quadro Maxwell as predecessor and Quadro Volta as successor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous about raw performance: the P4000 is the stronger card. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with the largest margins in Vulkan (33.3%), Passmark DirectX 10 (46.7%), and GPU compute (25.3%). Its average benchmark score of 9665 versus 8686 places it clearly ahead in overall capability.

The P2200 has one genuine advantage in the recorded data: Passmark G2D. Its 881 score beats the P4000's 786 by 10.8%, which suggests better 2D desktop rendering performance. It also consumes less power (75 W versus 105 W), requires no auxiliary power connector, is shorter, and was released later. For users with constrained chassis space or power delivery, these are meaningful differences.

The decision hinges on workload. The data suggests the P4000 for 3D rendering, compute, and any DirectX or Vulkan workload. The P2200 for 2D-focused tasks, low-power builds, or systems without a spare power connector. The P4000's 8 GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth give it additional headroom for large datasets, while the P2200's 5 GB and 200.2 GB/s are sufficient for lighter work.

Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so both are limited to conventional rasterization and compute. The P4000's launch MSRP was 815 USD; the P2200 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |

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

| Chip | GP104 | GP106 |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | Quadro Pascal (Px200) |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1202 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 1493 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) | 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.3 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 112 | 80 |

| ROPs | 64 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 94.72 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 165.8 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.304 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 105 W | 75 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2019-06-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 815 USD | None |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The P4000 dominates the head-to-head record, winning 8 of 9 tests. The biggest margin is in Passmark DirectX 10, where the P4000 scores 66 against the P2200's 45, a 46.7% lead. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison.

The Vulkan test shows the second-largest gap. The P4000 records 41786 versus 31351 for the P2200, a 33.3% advantage. This is a substantial lead in a modern cross-platform API and signals that the P4000's additional shading units and memory bandwidth translate well to compute-oriented graphics workloads.

Compute performance follows a similar pattern. In Passmark GPU Compute, the P4000 scores 4913 against 3921, a 25.3% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL test also favors the P4000 at 36212 versus 32344, a 12% margin. These results align with the FP32 throughput difference: the P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS versus 3.822 TFLOPS for the P2200.

DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 tests both go to the P4000. In DirectX 11, the scores are 86 versus 70, a 22.9% lead. In DirectX 12, the P4000 wins 40 to 33, a 21.2% margin. The Passmark G3D score also favors the P4000 at 11466 versus 9364, a 22.4% lead.

The closest 3D result is in Passmark DirectX 9, where the P4000 scores 181 against 167, an 8.4% edge. This suggests that in legacy DirectX 9 workloads, the gap narrows considerably.

The P2200's only win is Passmark G2D at 881 versus 786, a 10.8% advantage for the P4000 in reverse. This 2D test measures 2D graphics performance, and the P2200's stronger showing here is notable given its lower overall compute capability.

The P4000's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 (0.1% delta), the GeForce GTX 960M at 9645 (0.2%), and the Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.3%). The P2200's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8743 (-0.7%), the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8746 (-0.7%), and the AMD FirePro W5170M at 8595 (1.1%). The P4000 sits slightly ahead of its closest rivals, while the P2200 is competitive with but slightly below some of its neighbors.

Where Each One Wins

The P4000 wins in every 3D and compute category recorded. Its 46.7% DirectX 10 lead and 33.3% Vulkan lead are the standout margins, and its 25.3% GPU compute advantage makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU workloads. The 8 GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth support larger textures and datasets, and the higher pixel rate (94.72 GPixel/s versus 59.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (165.8 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s) give it more headroom in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The P2200 wins in 2D performance, as measured by Passmark G2D. Its 881 score versus 786 indicates better 2D rendering, which can matter for desktop environments, 2D CAD drafting views, and other non-3D applications. It also has a lower power draw (75 W versus 105 W), no power connector requirement, and a shorter board length (201 mm versus 241 mm), making it easier to install in compact systems or those with limited power budget. Its later release date of June 2019 versus February 2017 means it is a more recent design, though both are now end-of-life.

For users choosing between these two, the data points one way for 3D work: the P4000. For 2D-focused deployments, power-constrained environments, or systems without a 6-pin connector, the P2200 has clear appeal. The performance gap in 3D is large enough that the P4000's higher power draw and physical size are reasonable trade-offs for most professional workloads.