Quadro P2200 vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile

Place in the ranking	260	236
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	19.59	no data
Power efficiency	7.44	22.34
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GM204	GP106
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	21 September 2015 (9 years ago)	10 June 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$395.82	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2048	1280
Core clock speed	1064 MHz	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1216 MHz	1493 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100-200 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	136.2	119.4
Floating-point processing power	4.358 TFLOPS	3.822 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	40
TMUs	128	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	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	201 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5X
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	5 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	160 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	1251 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	4x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	+	-
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.

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-

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	1.1.126	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	97 −3.1%	100−110 +3.1%
4K	48 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.08	no data
4K	8.25	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −10.3%	75−80 +10.3%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −8.7%	100−105 +8.7%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −12.1%	65−70 +12.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −12.2%	55−60 +12.2%
Valorant	85−90 −9.2%	95−100 +9.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −10.3%	75−80 +10.3%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Dota 2	56 −7.1%	60−65 +7.1%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −7.1%	75−80 +7.1%
Fortnite	110−120 −7.1%	120−130 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −8.7%	100−105 +8.7%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	84 −7.1%	90−95 +7.1%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −12.1%	65−70 +12.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −5.6%	150−160 +5.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −12.2%	55−60 +12.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	81 −11.1%	90−95 +11.1%
Valorant	85−90 −9.2%	95−100 +9.2%
World of Tanks	240−250 −12%	270−280 +12%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −10.3%	75−80 +10.3%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Dota 2	75−80 −11.8%	85−90 +11.8%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −7.1%	75−80 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −8.7%	100−105 +8.7%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −5.6%	150−160 +5.6%
Valorant	85−90 −9.2%	95−100 +9.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −8.3%	130−140 +8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
World of Tanks	140−150 −10.3%	160−170 +10.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −7.1%	60−65 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −12.2%	55−60 +12.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Valorant	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	60 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −7.7%	70−75 +7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 −8.3%	65−70 +8.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Fortnite	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%

This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Quadro P2200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P2200 is 3% faster in 1080p
Quadro P2200 is 4% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.62	23.23
Recency	21 September 2015	10 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	5 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro P2200 has a 12.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 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.