Quadro K4000M vs Quadro K2200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200 with Quadro K4000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 68 Watt
9.21
+85.7%

K2200 outperforms K4000M by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking474632
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.02no data
Power efficiency9.443.46
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM107GK104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.75 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 cores640960
Core clock speed1046 MHz601 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate44.9648.08
Floating-point processing power1.439 TFLOPS1.154 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4080

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/s89.6 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
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. 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.

Quadro K2200 9.21
+85.7%
K4000M 4.96

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 3552
+85.6%
K4000M 1914

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.

Quadro K2200 11414
+95.9%
K4000M 5827

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.

Quadro K2200 11410
+145%
K4000M 4650

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K2200 31
+40.9%
K4000M 22

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 HD80−85
+81.8%
44
−81.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.95no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Quadro K2200 and K4000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2200 is 82% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.21 4.96
Recency 22 July 2014 1 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 68 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro K2200 has a 85.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 47.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation card while Quadro K4000M 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.

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
NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Quadro K4000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 414 votes

Rate Quadro K2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 14 votes

Rate Quadro K4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.