Quadro P2200 vs Quadro M6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M6000 and Quadro P2200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M6000
2015
12 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
30.51
+25.9%

M6000 outperforms P2200 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking182231
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.32no data
Power efficiency8.3722.15
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGM200GP106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date21 March 2015 (9 years ago)10 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,199.99 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 cores30721280
Core clock speed988 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1114 MHz1493 MHz
Number of transistors8,000 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate213.9119.4
Floating-point processing power6.844 TFLOPS3.822 TFLOPS
ROPs9640
TMUs19280

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm201 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 amount12 GB5 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1251 MHz
Memory bandwidth317.4 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, 4x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.26.1

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 M6000 30.51
+25.9%
Quadro P2200 24.23

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 M6000 11758
+26%
Quadro P2200 9335

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 M6000 39571
+22%
Quadro P2200 32445

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 M6000 47116
+51.7%
Quadro P2200 31058

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 M6000 32385
+8%
Quadro P2200 29989

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 30.51 24.23
Recency 21 March 2015 10 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 5 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro M6000 has a 25.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 140% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro P2200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2200 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 M6000
Quadro M6000
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.


2.4 150 votes

Rate Quadro M6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 365 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.