Radeon HD 6320 vs Quadro M2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2200 with Radeon HD 6320, including specs and performance data.
M2200 outperforms HD 6320 by a whopping 2811% 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 | 492 | 1366 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.33 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Loveland |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 15 August 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $554.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1024 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 695 MHz | 508 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1036 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 66.30 | 4.064 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.122 TFLOPS | 0.08128 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1377 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 43
+4200%
| 1−2
−4200%
|
| 4K | 14 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 554.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20−22 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+269%
|
24−27
−269%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+993%
|
14−16
−993%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+269%
|
24−27
−269%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+269%
|
24−27
−269%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+7700%
|
1−2
−7700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+3333%
|
3−4
−3333%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 14−16 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Palworld | 7−8 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro M2200 and HD 6320 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2200 is 4200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 7700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M2200 surpassed HD 6320 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.19 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 15 August 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro M2200 has a 2811% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6320, on the other hand, has 206% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6320 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.
