Radeon RX Vega 5 vs Quadro K2200

#ad 
Buy Quadro K2200
GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 Quadro K620 Quadro K1200 Quadro K2200 Tesla M10
VS
#ad 
Buy Radeon RX Vega 5
Radeon RX Vega 2 Radeon RX Vega 3 Radeon RX Vega 5 Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Radeon RX Vega 9

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200 with Radeon RX Vega 5, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 68 Watt
8.60
+100%

K2200 outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
RX Vega 5 RX Vega 5

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking490670
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.44no data
Power efficiency9.2620.95
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Vega
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)7 January 2020 (5 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 cores640320
Core clock speed1046 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1400 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Watt15 Watt
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 Bitno data
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)12_1
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 HD35−40
+84.2%
19
−84.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 11
+0%
11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8
+0%
8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 37
+0%
37
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12
+0%
12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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 RX Vega 5 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K2200 is 84% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.60 4.29
Recency 22 July 2014 7 January 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 68 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro K2200 has a 100.5% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 5, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 353.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 5 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 5 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
AMD Radeon RX Vega 5
Radeon RX Vega 5
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
GRID M6-8Q GRID M6 8Q
RX Vega 5 Radeon RX Vega 5
vs
Iris Plus Graphics 650 Iris Plus Graphics 650
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
P104-100 P104 100
Tesla K80m Tesla K80m
vs
GTX 1660 GTX 1660
Tesla K8 Tesla K8
vs
ATI DDR Radeon DDR
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
HD 8740 OEM HD 8740 OEM
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
G210 OEM Rev. 2 G210 OEM Rev. 2
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
ATI V9800 FirePro V9800
Quadro K420 Quadro K420
vs
RX 590 RX 590
Quadro K420 Quadro K420
vs
RTX 4070 Mobile RTX 4070 Mobile
Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
vs
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
HD Graphics 520 HD Graphics 520
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900

Community ratings

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

3.7 433 votes

Rate Quadro K2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 225 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 5 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2200 or Radeon RX Vega 5, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.