HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) vs Quadro K2200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200 with HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 68 Watt
8.50
+1973%

K2200 outperforms HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) by a whopping 1973% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5171288
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.38no data
Power efficiency9.48no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Gen. 8 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGM107Braswell
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)1 April 2016 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.75 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores64012
Core clock speed1046 MHz320 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz640 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Wattno data
Texture fill rate44.96no data
Floating-point processing power1.439 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length202 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortno data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA5.0-

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 HD160−170
+1900%
8
−1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.47no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro K2200 and HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2200 is 1900% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 25 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.50 0.41
Recency 22 July 2014 1 April 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

Quadro K2200 has a 1973.2% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K2200
Quadro K2200
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 453 votes

Rate Quadro K2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 253 votes

Rate HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2200 or HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.