Quadro P620 vs Quadro M2200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2200 with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2200
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
11.05
+16.4%

M2200 outperforms P620 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking424468
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.8216.33
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGM206GP107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date11 January 2017 (8 years ago)1 February 2018 (6 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 cores1024512
Core clock speed695 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speed1036 MHz1443 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate66.3046.18
Floating-point processing power2.122 TFLOPS1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6432

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno dataIGP
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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1377 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth88 GB/s96.13 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.26.1

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.

Quadro M2200 11.05
+16.4%
Quadro P620 9.49

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.

Quadro M2200 4250
+16.4%
Quadro P620 3650

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro M2200 7372
+24.8%
Quadro P620 5909

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.

Quadro M2200 24622
Quadro P620 25105
+2%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Quadro M2200 5850
+25.2%
Quadro P620 4673

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro M2200 37796
+24.3%
Quadro P620 30410

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.

Quadro M2200 13310
+10.1%
Quadro P620 12086

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Quadro M2200 289176
Quadro P620 310112
+7.2%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Quadro M2200 1724
+24.2%
Quadro P620 1388

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro M2200 15377
+40.9%
Quadro P620 10916

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.

Quadro M2200 12812
+9.3%
Quadro P620 11727

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Quadro M2200 47
+14.7%
Quadro P620 41

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Quadro M2200 86
+9.5%
Quadro P620 79

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Quadro M2200 58
+15.5%
Quadro P620 50

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Quadro M2200 72
+32.8%
Quadro P620 54

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Quadro M2200 69
+15.5%
Quadro P620 59

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Quadro M2200 25
+69.7%
Quadro P620 15

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Quadro M2200 33
+27.1%
Quadro P620 26

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Quadro M2200 5
+33.3%
Quadro P620 4

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Quadro M2200 33
+28.6%
Quadro P620 26

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Quadro M2200 47
+15%
Quadro P620 41

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Quadro M2200 72
+31.6%
Quadro P620 55

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Quadro M2200 86
+10.2%
Quadro P620 78

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Quadro M2200 58
+15%
Quadro P620 51

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Quadro M2200 69
+14.5%
Quadro P620 60

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 HD43
−11.6%
48
+11.6%
4K14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Elden Ring 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+16.1%
30−35
−16.1%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+15.8%
35−40
−15.8%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+16%
24−27
−16%
Valorant 40−45
+20%
35−40
−20%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+16.1%
30−35
−16.1%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Dota 2 40−45
+33.3%
30
−33.3%
Elden Ring 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−45.5%
64
+45.5%
Fortnite 60−65
+14.3%
55−60
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+15.8%
35−40
−15.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+14.7%
30−35
−14.7%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+400%
6
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
−48.8%
125
+48.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+16%
24−27
−16%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+13.8%
27−30
−13.8%
Valorant 40−45
+20%
35−40
−20%
World of Tanks 150−160
+13%
130−140
−13%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+16.1%
30−35
−16.1%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Dota 2 40−45
−108%
83
+108%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+15.8%
35−40
−15.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+13.5%
70−75
−13.5%
Valorant 40−45
+20%
35−40
−20%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Elden Ring 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+13%
45−50
−13%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
World of Tanks 75−80
+16.2%
65−70
−16.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+20%
20−22
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+29.4%
16−18
−29.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Valorant 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Dota 2 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Elden Ring 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Fortnite 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Valorant 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

This is how Quadro M2200 and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P620 is 12% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro M2200 is 17% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 400% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P620 is 108% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro M2200 is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
  • Quadro P620 is ahead in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.05 9.49
Recency 11 January 2017 1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 40 Watt

Quadro M2200 has a 16.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro P620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 37.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro P620 is a workstation 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 M2200
Quadro M2200
NVIDIA Quadro P620
Quadro P620

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.


3.7 378 votes

Rate Quadro M2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 636 votes

Rate Quadro P620 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.