Quadro P2200 vs GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with Quadro P2200, including specs and performance data.
P2200 outperforms GTX 1060 Mobile by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 287 | 236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.98 | 22.34 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GP106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 10 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 cores | 1280 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 119.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 40 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 160 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 1251 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 200.2 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 Connectors | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 4x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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 | 68
−17.6%
| 80−85
+17.6%
|
| 1440p | 44
−13.6%
| 50−55
+13.6%
|
| 4K | 30
−16.7%
| 35−40
+16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.39 | no data |
| 4K | 7.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
−12.5%
|
45−50
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 63
−19%
|
75−80
+19%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
−22.6%
|
130−140
+22.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
−19.4%
|
80−85
+19.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
−23.2%
|
85−90
+23.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 74
−21.6%
|
90−95
+21.6%
|
| Valorant | 86
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
−23.3%
|
90−95
+23.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 49
−22.4%
|
60−65
+22.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
−21.4%
|
85−90
+21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 94
−17%
|
110−120
+17%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
−18.8%
|
95−100
+18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
−22%
|
50−55
+22%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
−21.6%
|
90−95
+21.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
−22.4%
|
60−65
+22.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 204
−22.5%
|
250−260
+22.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
−20%
|
90−95
+20%
|
| Valorant | 53
−22.6%
|
65−70
+22.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 222
−21.6%
|
270−280
+21.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 57
−22.8%
|
70−75
+22.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
−18.6%
|
140−150
+18.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−21.2%
|
80−85
+21.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 68
−17.6%
|
80−85
+17.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 72
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−18.6%
|
140−150
+18.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−19.4%
|
160−170
+19.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−22.6%
|
65−70
+22.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−17.6%
|
60−65
+17.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 46
−19.6%
|
55−60
+19.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 64
−17.2%
|
75−80
+17.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−20.7%
|
35−40
+20.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 23
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and Quadro P2200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2200 is 18% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P2200 is 14% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P2200 is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.84 | 23.23 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 10 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 5 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has a 20% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro P2200, on the other hand, has a 23.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 6.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro P2200 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
