FirePro M6000 vs Quadro K2200M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200M and FirePro M6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K2200M
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
9.05
+91.3%

K2200M outperforms M6000 by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking482648
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.587.57
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Heathrow
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date19 July 2014 (10 years ago)1 July 2012 (12 years ago)

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 cores640640
Core clock speed667 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt43 Watt
Texture fill rate26.6832.00
Floating-point processing power0.8538 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4040

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Form factorno dataMXM-B
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s72 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data
StereoOutput3D-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.0-

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.

K2200M 9.05
+91.3%
FirePro M6000 4.73

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.

K2200M 3481
+91.3%
FirePro M6000 1820

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p110−120
+89.7%
58
−89.7%
Full HD70−75
+79.5%
39
−79.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Elden Ring 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Elden Ring 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
World of Tanks 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how K2200M and FirePro M6000 compete in popular games:

  • K2200M is 90% faster in 900p
  • K2200M is 79% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.05 4.73
Recency 19 July 2014 1 July 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 43 Watt

K2200M has a 91.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

FirePro M6000, on the other hand, has 51.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M6000 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 K2200M
Quadro K2200M
AMD FirePro M6000
FirePro M6000

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 39 votes

Rate Quadro K2200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 15 votes

Rate FirePro M6000 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.