GRID K220Q vs Quadro CX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro CX and GRID K220Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
CX outperforms K220Q by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 915 | 923 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 1.17 | 0.75 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 November 2008 (17 years ago) | 2 July 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $469 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GRID K220Q has 300% better value for money than Quadro CX.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.53 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 512 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 1.3 | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 2.27 | 2.19 |
| Recency | 11 November 2008 | 2 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro CX has a 4% higher aggregate performance score, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
GRID K220Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro CX and GRID K220Q.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
