Quadro K5100M vs Quadro K2200M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200M and Quadro K5100M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K2200M
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
9.05
+8.5%

K2200M outperforms K5100M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking482506
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.585.74
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM107GK104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date19 July 2014 (10 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 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 cores6401536
Core clock speed667 MHz771 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate26.6898.69
Floating-point processing power0.8538 TFLOPS2.369 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs40128

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 datalarge
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s115.2 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 Port1.21.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Management++
Optimus++

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
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
+8.5%
K5100M 8.34

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
+8.6%
K5100M 3205

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.

K2200M 10787
K5100M 11427
+5.9%

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:

Full HD50−55
+2%
49
−2%
4K30−35
+3.4%
29
−3.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Elden Ring 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
+0%
32
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Elden Ring 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how K2200M and K5100M compete in popular games:

  • K2200M is 2% faster in 1080p
  • K2200M is 3% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.05 8.34
Recency 19 July 2014 23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 100 Watt

K2200M has a 8.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and 53.8% lower power consumption.

K5100M, on the other hand, has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K2200M and Quadro K5100M.


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
NVIDIA Quadro K5100M
Quadro K5100M

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
3.4 50 votes

Rate Quadro K5100M 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.