Radeon RX 590 vs Quadro K2200M

Place in the ranking	487	238
Place by popularity	not in top-100	100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	23.91
Power efficiency	9.63	9.59
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GM107	Polaris 30
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	19 July 2014 (10 years ago)	15 November 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$279

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 cores	640	2304
Core clock speed	667 MHz	1469 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1545 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.68	222.5
Floating-point processing power	0.8538 TFLOPS	7.119 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	40	144

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	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	256.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	-	+
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.

DirectX	12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	-

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 8.74

RX 590 23.43
+168%

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

RX 590 9390
+168%

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 HD	35−40 −191%	102 +191%
1440p	21−24 −190%	61 +190%
4K	12−14 −208%	37 +208%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.74
1440p	no data	4.57
4K	no data	7.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	87 +0%	87 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	137 +0%	137 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	88 +0%	88 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	91 +0%	91 +0%
Valorant	128 +0%	128 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	129 +0%	129 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Fortnite	116 +0%	116 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	114 +0%	114 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	79 +0%	79 +0%
Metro Exodus	60 +0%	60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	239 +0%	239 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +0%	39 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Valorant	64 +0%	64 +0%
World of Tanks	250−260 +0%	250−260 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	71 +0%	71 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Dota 2	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +0%	100 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	79 +0%	79 +0%
Valorant	110 +0%	110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
World of Tanks	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70 +0%	70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	58 +0%	58 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	75 +0%	75 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	41 +0%	41 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	19 +0%	19 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	82 +0%	82 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +0%	41 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30 +0%	30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	34 +0%	34 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40 +0%	40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	39 +0%	39 +0%

This is how K2200M and RX 590 compete in popular games:

RX 590 is 191% faster in 1080p
RX 590 is 190% faster in 1440p
RX 590 is 208% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.74	23.43
Recency	19 July 2014	15 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	175 Watt

K2200M has 169.2% lower power consumption.

RX 590, on the other hand, has a 168.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.