Quadro K2200M vs M2000
Aggregated performance score
M2000 outperforms K2200M by 15% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 404 | 449 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 4.02 | 3.75 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years old) | 19 July 2014 (9 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $437.75 | no data |
| Current price | $285 (0.7x MSRP) | $228 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M2000 has 7% better value for money than K2200M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 796 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1163 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.82 | 26.68 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,812 gflops | 853.8 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro M2000 and Quadro K2200M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 106 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | DP DP DP DP | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
M2000 outperforms K2200M by 15% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
M2000 outperforms K2200M by 15% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
M2000 outperforms K2200M by 30% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 10.32 | 8.95 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 19 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Quadro K2200M 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
