Quadro P2200 vs K1000M

Place in performance ranking	838	210
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	0.15	32.26
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	N14P-Q1	GP106
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	1 June 2012 (11 years ago)	10 June 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$119.90	no data
Current price	$232 (1.9x MSRP)	$409

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2200 has 21407% better value for money than K1000M.

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	192	1280
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1493 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	119.4
Floating-point performance	326.4 gflops	no data

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Quadro K1000M and Quadro P2200 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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	201 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

Memory type	DDR3	GDDR5X
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	5 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	160 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	10008 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	200.2 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

No outputs

4x DisplayPort

Supported GPU Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

no data

API Compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

K1000M 2.02

Quadro P2200 24.09
+1093%

P2200 outperforms K1000M by 1093% 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%

K1000M 783

Quadro P2200 9324
+1091%

P2200 outperforms K1000M by 1091% in Passmark.

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%

K1000M 1690

Quadro P2200 31487
+1763%

P2200 outperforms K1000M by 1763% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Benchmark coverage: 5%

K1000M 1509

Quadro P2200 31016
+1955%

P2200 outperforms K1000M by 1955% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Benchmark coverage: 4%

K1000M 1335

Quadro P2200 29989
+2146%

P2200 outperforms K1000M by 2146% 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:

900p	9 −1011%	100−110 +1011%
Full HD	18 −1067%	210−220 +1067%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−1025%

45−50
+1025%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −1082%	130−140 +1082%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1088%	95−100 +1088%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −1082%	130−140 +1082%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1088%	95−100 +1088%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Hitman 3	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −1043%	80−85 +1043%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

This is how K1000M and Quadro P2200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P2200 is 1011% faster than K1000M in 900p
Quadro P2200 is 1067% faster than K1000M in 1080p

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	2.02	24.09
Recency	1 June 2012	10 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	5 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt