Quadro M2200 vs GeForce GTX 780
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by an impressive 88% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 247 | 394 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.87 | 1.00 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | N17P-Q3 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
| Current price | $100 (0.2x MSRP) | $1967 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 780 has 1587% better value for money than Quadro M2200.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 1024 |
| CUDA cores | 2304 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 863 MHz | 694 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 1870 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 160.5 billion/sec | 66.30 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,156 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 780 and Quadro M2200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Minimum recommended system power | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 8-pin and one 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 5508 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 88 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
| PhysX | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Live | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 88% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 88% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 79% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 82% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 34% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 780 outperforms Quadro M2200 by 41% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 54
+28.6%
| 42
−28.6%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+84.6%
| 13
−84.6%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.71 | 11.02 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 13 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 55 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 780 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2200 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780 is a desktop card while Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
