Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs Quadro K2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2200 and Radeon Pro WX 8200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro 8200 outperforms K2200 by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 533 | 203 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.39 | 8.30 |
| Power efficiency | 9.68 | 10.19 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.75 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro WX 8200 has 497% better value for money than Quadro K2200.
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 cores | 640 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.439 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 40 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 202 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D 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 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.125 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.56 | 30.48 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 230 Watt |
Quadro K2200 has 238.2% lower power consumption.
Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 256.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
