Quadro FX 1800M vs Quadro M2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2200 and Quadro FX 1800M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M2200 outperforms FX 1800M by a whopping 765% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 434 | 1049 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.77 | 1.94 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
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 | 1024 | 72 |
| Core clock speed | 695 MHz | 561 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1036 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 66.30 | 13.46 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.122 TFLOPS | 0.162 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 24 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1377 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | 35.2 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 | No outputs |
| 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.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 43
+975%
| 4−5
−975%
|
| 4K | 14
+1300%
| 1−2
−1300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+446%
|
27−30
−446%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+1029%
|
7−8
−1029%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how Quadro M2200 and FX 1800M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2200 is 975% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M2200 is 1300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 4500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M2200 surpassed FX 1800M in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.52 | 1.10 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro M2200 has a 765.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1800M, on the other hand, has 22.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800M 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.
