Quadro K2200M vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) with Quadro K2200M, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
2021
15 Watt
14.02
+54.2%

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) outperforms K2200M by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking378487
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency64.259.61
Architectureno dataMaxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameRocket Lake GT1GM107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2021 (3 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 coresno data640
Core clock speedno data667 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rateno data26.68
Floating-point processing powerno data0.8538 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data40

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).

Interfaceno dataMXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1253 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80 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 dataNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXno data12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-+
CUDA-5.0

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 HD13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Far Cry 5 9
+80%
5−6
−80%
Fortnite 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+60%
35−40
−60%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%
Valorant 110−120
+60%
70−75
−60%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+66.4%
110−120
−66.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Dota 2 27
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Far Cry 5 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Fortnite 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+60%
35−40
−60%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+100%
3−4
−100%
Metro Exodus 7
+75%
4−5
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Valorant 110−120
+60%
70−75
−60%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Dota 2 25
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Far Cry 5 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+60%
35−40
−60%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Valorant 110−120
+60%
70−75
−60%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+65%
60−65
−65%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+54.7%
75−80
−54.7%
Valorant 130−140
+54.4%
90−95
−54.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Valorant 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

This is how UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) and K2200M compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is 63% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.02 9.09
Recency 30 March 2021 19 July 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has a 54.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation one.

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.


Intel UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
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.


3.8 115 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 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 give us your opinion about UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) or Quadro K2200M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.