Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Quadro K2200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 68 Watt
9.07
+81%

K2200 outperforms Iris Xe MAX Graphics by an impressive 81% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking482634
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.43no data
Power efficiency9.3714.07
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGM107DG1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 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

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 cores640768
Core clock speed1046 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate44.9679.20
Floating-point processing power1.439 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs1624
TMUs4048

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
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 typeGDDR5LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/s68.26 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA5.0-

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.

Quadro K2200 9.07
+81%
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.01

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.

Quadro K2200 3568
+81%
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971

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 HD45−50
+66.7%
27
−66.7%
1440p35−40
+75%
20
−75%
4K27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.79no data
1440p11.31no data
4K14.66no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how Quadro K2200 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2200 is 67% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro K2200 is 75% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro K2200 is 69% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.07 5.01
Recency 22 July 2014 31 October 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 68 Watt 25 Watt

Quadro K2200 has a 81% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 172% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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 Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

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.


3.7 430 votes

Rate Quadro K2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 273 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2200 or Iris Xe MAX Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.