Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs Quadro M2200

Place in the ranking	424	399
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.86	11.51
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GM206	Vega 12
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	14 November 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 cores	1024	1024
Core clock speed	695 MHz	815 MHz
Boost clock speed	1036 MHz	1190 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	66.30	76.16
Floating-point processing power	2.122 TFLOPS	2.437 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	64

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	large
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	1024 Bit
Memory clock speed	1377 MHz	1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth	88 GB/s	307.2 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
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. 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

Pro Vega 16 12.51
+13.2%

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

Pro Vega 16 4809
+13.2%

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

Pro Vega 16 10569
+43.4%

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

Pro Vega 16 7745
+32.4%

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

Pro Vega 16 56273
+48.9%

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

Pro Vega 16 22421
+68.5%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Quadro M2200 1724

Pro Vega 16 2198
+27.5%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro M2200 15377

Pro Vega 16 21832
+42%

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 −32.6%	57 +32.6%
4K	14 −171%	38 +171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Elden Ring	30−35 −15.6%	35−40 +15.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −13.9%	40−45 +13.9%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
Metro Exodus	30−33 −13.3%	30−35 +13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −10.3%	30−35 +10.3%
Valorant	40−45 −16.7%	45−50 +16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −13.9%	40−45 +13.9%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Dota 2	40−45 +60%	25 −60%
Elden Ring	30−35 −15.6%	35−40 +15.6%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	44 +0%
Fortnite	60−65 −10.9%	70−75 +10.9%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −15.4%	45−50 +15.4%
Metro Exodus	30−33 −13.3%	30−35 +13.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 −10.7%	90−95 +10.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −10.3%	30−35 +10.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −15.2%	35−40 +15.2%
Valorant	40−45 −16.7%	45−50 +16.7%
World of Tanks	150−160 −9.6%	170−180 +9.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −13.9%	40−45 +13.9%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −10%	21−24 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Dota 2	40−45 −80%	72 +80%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −9.1%	45−50 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 −10.7%	90−95 +10.7%
Valorant	40−45 −16.7%	45−50 +16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Elden Ring	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −13.3%	16−18 +13.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −55.8%	80−85 +55.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
World of Tanks	75−80 −12.7%	85−90 +12.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −13.6%	24−27 +13.6%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −20.8%	27−30 +20.8%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −16%	27−30 +16%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −18.2%	24−27 +18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Valorant	27−30 −14.8%	30−35 +14.8%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Dota 2	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Elden Ring	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −15.6%	35−40 +15.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 −81%	38 +81%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Fortnite	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Valorant	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%

This is how Quadro M2200 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 16 is 33% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 16 is 171% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 60% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 81% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro M2200 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pro Vega 16 is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.05	12.51
Recency	11 January 2017	14 November 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro M2200 has 36.4% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has a 13.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 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.