Quadro K2200 vs GeForce GTX 470
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 470 with Quadro K2200, including specs and performance data.
K2200 outperforms GTX 470 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 519 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.34 | 3.35 |
| Power efficiency | 2.60 | 9.41 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $395.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro K2200 has 150% better value for money than GTX 470.
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 | 448 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.05 | 44.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 40 |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 202 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 133.9 GB/s | 80.19 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 | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 55
−9.1%
| 60−65
+9.1%
|
| Full HD | 63
−11.1%
| 70−75
+11.1%
|
| 1200p | 53
−13.2%
| 60−65
+13.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.54
+2.1%
| 5.65
−2.1%
|
- GTX 470 and Quadro K2200 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−14.6%
|
55−60
+14.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
−6.6%
|
130−140
+6.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 64
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−12.5%
|
45−50
+12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
−12.1%
|
65−70
+12.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
This is how GTX 470 and Quadro K2200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K2200 is 9% faster in 900p
- Quadro K2200 is 11% faster in 1080p
- Quadro K2200 is 13% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.09 | 9.27 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 68 Watt |
Quadro K2200 has a 14.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 216.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 470 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 470 is a desktop card while Quadro K2200 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.
