Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs Quadro K2200M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K2200M M600M M620 M1000M M1200 M2000M
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
2 3 5 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200M with Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.

K2200M
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
8.48
+49.3%

K2200M outperforms 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
K2200M K2200M
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking554659
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.0929.29
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Vega Renoir
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date19 July 2014 (12 years ago)7 January 2020 (6 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640384
Core clock speed667 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate26.68no data
Floating-point processing power0.8538 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no data
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno data

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).

InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)no data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1253 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1212_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA5.0-

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 HD27−30
+35%
20
−35%
1440p35−40
+45.8%
24
−45.8%
4K24−27
+33.3%
18
−33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 34
+0%
34
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 97
+0%
97
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 56
+0%
56
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Dota 2 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%
Valorant 73
+0%
73
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
+0%
8
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 49
+0%
49
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Palworld 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 22
+0%
22
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how K2200M and RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:

  • K2200M is 35% faster in 1080p
  • K2200M is 46% faster in 1440p
  • K2200M is 33% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.48 5.68
Recency 19 July 2014 7 January 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 15 Watt

K2200M has a 49% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 333% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

K2200M Quadro K2200M
vs
Pro 560 Radeon Pro 560
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
vs
GeForce MX250 GeForce MX250
K2200M Quadro K2200M
vs
Pro W5500M Radeon Pro W5500M
NVS 295 NVIDIA NVS 295
vs
GTX 750 Ti OEM 750 Ti OEM
FX 3800 NVIDIA FX 3800
vs
RTX A3000 Mobile A3000 Mobile
FX 1700 NVIDIA FX 1700
vs
ATI 9550 9550
FX 540 NVIDIA FX 540
vs
Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB P100 PCIe 16 GB
Quadro4 400 NVS PCI Quadro4 400 NVS PCI
vs
Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB V100S PCIe 32 GB
GeForce MX150 GeForce MX150
vs
6600 GT 6600 GT
GeForce MX150 GeForce MX150
vs
Quadro2 MXR MXR
GTX 1070 Max-Q NVIDIA GTX 1070 Max-Q
vs
UHD Graphics 920 920
Pro 555 AMD Pro 555
vs
Iris Xe MAX Graphics MAX Graphics
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB NVIDIA GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB
vs
RX 7700 XT 7700 XT

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
3.9 873 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2200M or Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.