Quadro K2200 vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) with Quadro K2200, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) outperforms K2200 by a considerable 47% 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 | 448 | 556 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.40 |
| Power efficiency | 65.06 | 9.78 |
| Architecture | no data | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Rocket Lake GT1 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 30 March 2021 (5 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $395.75 |
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 | no data | 640 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 44.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 202 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80.19 GB/s |
| 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 data | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| 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 HD | 12 | 8−9
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 49.47 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24 |
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+50%
|
6−7 |
| Fortnite | 70−75
+48%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+55.7%
|
70−75 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24 |
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+55.6%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+49.2%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Dota 2 | 27
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+60%
|
5−6 |
| Fortnite | 70−75
+48%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+50%
|
4−5 |
| Metro Exodus | 7
+75%
|
4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+55.7%
|
70−75 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Dota 2 | 25
+56.3%
|
16−18 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+60%
|
5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+55.7%
|
70−75 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+48%
|
50−55 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+58.3%
|
60−65 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+54.5%
|
55−60 |
| Valorant | 120−130
+51.3%
|
80−85 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+50%
|
40−45 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9 |
This is how UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) and Quadro K2200 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is 50% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.59 | 8.58 |
| Recency | 30 March 2021 | 22 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 68 Watt |
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has a 47% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 78% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K2200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
