Quadro K2200M vs Radeon Pro 560

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560 and Quadro K2200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 560
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.04

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking483482
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.299.57
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code namePolaris 21GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)19 July 2014 (10 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 cores1024640
Core clock speed907 MHz667 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate58.0526.68
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPS0.8538 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs6440

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)
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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/s80 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 Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-5.0

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.

Pro 560 9.04
K2200M 9.05
+0.1%

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.

Pro 560 3475
K2200M 3481
+0.2%

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.

Pro 560 15536
+44%
K2200M 10787

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Elden Ring 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Fortnite 50−55
+6%
50−55
−6%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+1.4%
70−75
−1.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
World of Tanks 130−140
+2.3%
130−140
−2.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+1.4%
70−75
−1.4%
Valorant 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+10%
40−45
−10%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.04 9.05
Recency 18 April 2017 19 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 65 Watt

Pro 560 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

K2200M, on the other hand, has a 0.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560 and Quadro K2200M.


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.


AMD Radeon Pro 560
Radeon Pro 560
NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Quadro K2200M

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.


4 113 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 39 votes

Rate Quadro K2200M 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.