Quadro P2200 vs Quadro K2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 and Quadro P2200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.09

P2200 outperforms K2000 by a whopping 491% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking685228
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.36no data
Power efficiency5.7923.24
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK107GP106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)10 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3841280
Core clock speed954 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1493 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate30.53119.4
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS3.822 TFLOPS
ROPs1640
TMUs3280

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length202 mm201 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5X
Maximum RAM amount2 GB5 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1251 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s200.2 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA3.06.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K2000 4.09
Quadro P2200 24.16
+491%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro K2000 1580
Quadro P2200 9324
+490%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K2000 3961
Quadro P2200 32416
+718%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro K2000 4097
Quadro P2200 31052
+658%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro K2000 3055
Quadro P2200 29989
+882%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.09 24.16
Recency 1 March 2013 10 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 5 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro K2000 has 47.1% lower power consumption.

Quadro P2200, on the other hand, has a 490.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000
NVIDIA Quadro P2200
Quadro P2200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 212 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 352 votes

Rate Quadro P2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.