ATI Radeon HD 5670 vs Quadro K2200M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2200M with Radeon HD 5670, including specs and performance data.

K2200M
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
8.50
+336%

K2200M outperforms ATI HD 5670 by a whopping 336% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking485882
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.25
Power efficiency9.642.25
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM107Redwood
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date19 July 2014 (10 years ago)14 January 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119

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 cores640400
Core clock speed667 MHz775 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million627 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt64 Watt
Texture fill rate26.6815.50
Floating-point processing power0.8538 TFLOPS0.62 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs4020

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).

InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s64 GB/s

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+N/A
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.

K2200M 8.50
+336%
ATI HD 5670 1.95

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.

K2200M 3501
+337%
ATI HD 5670 802

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:

900p110−120
+323%
26
−323%
Full HD130−140
+306%
32
−306%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.72

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how K2200M and ATI HD 5670 compete in popular games:

  • K2200M is 323% faster in 900p
  • K2200M is 306% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 48 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.50 1.95
Recency 19 July 2014 14 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 64 Watt

K2200M has a 335.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 5670, on the other hand, has 1.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2200M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5670 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 5670 is a desktop 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 K2200M
Quadro K2200M
ATI Radeon HD 5670
Radeon HD 5670

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.


3.8 39 votes

Rate Quadro K2200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 455 votes

Rate Radeon HD 5670 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.