NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm delivers 3.935 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS. In the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test, the Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215 versus 11,431 for the Quadro K2200, a 50.6% advantage.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 249.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla K20Xm memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K2200 memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Q: Are these cards from the same GPU architecture generation?

A: No. The Tesla K20Xm is based on the GK110 chip with Kepler architecture, while the Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture. Both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the Tesla K20Xm packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, versus 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die for the Quadro K2200.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Tesla K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W and requires a suggested 550 W power supply, while the Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and needs only a suggested 250 W power supply. The Quadro K2200 is also a single-slot card with no power connectors, whereas the Tesla K20Xm is a dual-slot design.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The Quadro K2200 has display outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla K20Xm has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only accelerator.

Q: How do their benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The Tesla K20Xm sits at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 12,625. The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile with an average benchmark score of 10,761.

The Verdict

The data points to two fundamentally different products serving different roles. The Tesla K20Xm is the clear compute leader. Its average benchmark score of 12,625 versus 10,761 for the Quadro K2200 represents a 17.3% overall advantage. In the only head-to-head benchmark test recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla K20Xm wins by 50.6%. For anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, the choice is unambiguous.

The Quadro K2200, however, is the only one of the two that can drive a display. It has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Tesla K20Xm has none. The Quadro K2200 also draws dramatically less power: 68 W versus 235 W, with a suggested power supply of 250 W versus 550 W. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it far easier to integrate into a workstation.

The decision hinges on use case. If the task is pure compute with no need for visual output, the Tesla K20Xm is the stronger performer. If the task requires a display, lower power draw, and a simpler physical footprint, the Quadro K2200 is the only viable option between the two. There is no overlap in their optimal roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains one benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla K20Xm scores 17,215, and the Quadro K2200 scores 11,431. The Tesla K20Xm wins by 50.6%. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the massive difference in shading units: 2,688 versus 640, and texture units: 224 versus 40.

The Tesla K20Xm also leads in aggregate metrics. Its average benchmark score of 12,625 places it at the 52nd percentile, while the Quadro K2200's 10,761 places it at the 49th percentile. In the nearest rival comparison, the Tesla K20Xm is 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670, 1.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 455. The Quadro K2200 is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 450, 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti, 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S.

The Tesla K20Xm also dominates in pixel and texture throughput. It achieves 40.99 GPixel/s and 164.0 GTexel/s, versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s for the Quadro K2200. These are 2.3x and 3.6x advantages, respectively. The memory bandwidth gap is similarly wide: 249.6 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, a 3.1x difference.

There is no benchmark in the database where the Quadro K2200 beats the Tesla K20Xm. The only category where the Quadro K2200 has a recorded advantage is the Vulkan benchmark, where it scores 10,090, but no corresponding Tesla K20Xm Vulkan score exists for comparison. The Geekbench Metal test shows the Tesla K20Xm scoring 8,035, but again, no Quadro K2200 Metal score is recorded.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. Memory size: 6 GB versus 4 GB. Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 128 bit. Memory bandwidth: 249.6 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Shading units: 2,688 versus 640. Texture mapping units: 224 versus 40. Raster output units: 48 versus 16.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Quadro K2200 has a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Tesla K20Xm has no listed base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks are close: 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) for the Tesla K20Xm, versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro K2200.

Physical specifications diverge sharply. The Tesla K20Xm is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The Quadro K2200 is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The Tesla K20Xm has no listed power connectors; the Quadro K2200 requires none. The Tesla K20Xm has a TDP of 235 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Tesla K20Xm versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro K2200. Display outputs are present only on the Quadro K2200 (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2). The Tesla K20Xm has no outputs.

API support is mostly similar: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan version differs slightly, with the Tesla K20Xm supporting 1.2.175 and the Quadro K2200 supporting 1.4. Neither card has RT cores or Tensor cores.

Architecture Differences

The Tesla K20Xm uses the GK110 chip, a Kepler architecture design. The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip, a Maxwell architecture design. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both have the same transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The transistor counts, however, are vastly different: 7,080 million for the Tesla K20Xm versus 1,870 million for the Quadro K2200. Die size is 561 mm² versus 148 mm².

The generation labels in the database are notable. The Tesla K20Xm is listed under "Tesla Kepler (Kxx)", while the Quadro K2200 is listed under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite using a Maxwell chip. This suggests the Quadro K2200's product generation naming does not align with its internal architecture.

The Tesla K20Xm's predecessor is Tesla Fermi and its successor is Tesla Maxwell. The Quadro K2200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The release dates are roughly 20 months apart: the Tesla K20Xm launched on 2012-11-11, and the Quadro K2200 launched on 2014-07-21.

The architectural differences manifest directly in compute resources. The Kepler-based Tesla K20Xm has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Maxwell-based Quadro K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Tesla K20Xm's larger die and transistor budget allow for a much wider execution engine, which explains its 50.6% lead in the OpenCL benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K20Xm wins in every measured compute benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,215 versus 11,431 is a 50.6% margin. Its FP32 throughput of 3.935 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 40.99 GPixel/s and texture rate of 164.0 GTexel/s dwarf the Quadro K2200's 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s.

The Tesla K20Xm also wins on memory. Its 6 GB capacity, 384-bit bus, and 249.6 GB/s bandwidth are all substantially larger than the Quadro K2200's 4 GB, 128-bit bus, and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large dataset processing or high-resolution compute tasks, this gap is decisive.

The Quadro K2200 wins in physical integration and power efficiency. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 68 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Tesla K20Xm is a dual-slot card with a 235 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. For compact workstations or systems with limited power headroom, the Quadro K2200 is the practical choice.

The Quadro K2200 also wins on display capability. It has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Tesla K20Xm has none. Any workflow that requires a GPU to drive a monitor, such as CAD viewport rendering or general desktop use, must use the Quadro K2200.

The bus interface favors the Tesla K20Xm, which supports PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Quadro K2200's PCIe 2.0 x16. This affects host-to-device transfer speeds, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates this difference.

In summary, the Tesla K20Xm is the compute specialist. It wins on raw performance, memory bandwidth, and throughput metrics. The Quadro K2200 is the workstation generalist. It wins on power draw, physical size, and display outputs. The recorded data shows a 1-0 win tally in head-to-head benchmarks for the Tesla K20Xm, but the Quadro K2200's advantages are in areas that benchmarks do not capture.