Quadro P4200 vs M2200
Aggregated performance score
P4200 outperforms M2200 by 127% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 392 | 198 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.02 | 7.57 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N17P-Q3 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 7 May 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Current price | $1967 | $1526 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P4200 has 642% better value for money than Quadro M2200.
Detailed specifications
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 | 1024 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 694 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1870 Million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 66.30 | 237.2 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M2200 and Quadro P4200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5508 MHz | 7132 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | 192.3 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 compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 6.1 |
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.
P4200 outperforms M2200 by 127% 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%
P4200 outperforms M2200 by 148% 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%
P4200 outperforms M2200 by 173% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
P4200 outperforms M2200 by 194% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 45
−122%
| 100−110
+122%
|
| 4K | 14
−114%
| 30−35
+114%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−113%
|
45−50
+113%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
−128%
|
65−70
+128%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
−120%
|
65−70
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
−159%
|
75−80
+159%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−135%
|
50−55
+135%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−116%
|
40−45
+116%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−139%
|
55−60
+139%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
−140%
|
45−50
+140%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−113%
|
45−50
+113%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
−128%
|
65−70
+128%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
−120%
|
65−70
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
−159%
|
75−80
+159%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−135%
|
50−55
+135%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−147%
|
40−45
+147%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−116%
|
40−45
+116%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−139%
|
55−60
+139%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
−54.1%
|
55−60
+54.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
−140%
|
45−50
+140%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−113%
|
45−50
+113%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−141%
|
40−45
+141%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−136%
|
65−70
+136%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
−120%
|
65−70
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−185%
|
55−60
+185%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
−140%
|
45−50
+140%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−147%
|
40−45
+147%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−94.1%
|
30−35
+94.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
−136%
|
30−35
+136%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−180%
|
55−60
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−139%
|
40−45
+139%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−153%
|
45−50
+153%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−160%
|
50−55
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
This is how Quadro M2200 and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 122% faster than Quadro M2200 in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 114% faster than Quadro M2200 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 500% faster than the Quadro M2200.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed Quadro M2200 in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.06 | 25.06 |
| Recency | 13 January 2017 | 7 May 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 115 Watt |
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2200 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
