Quadro K2200M vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M and Quadro K2200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.66
+62%

M3000M outperforms K2200M by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking358482
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.499.61
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGM204GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)19 July 2014 (10 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 cores1,024640
Core clock speed1050 MHz667 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2026.68
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS0.8538 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6440

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
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 width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s80 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 Port1.21.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Management++
Optimus++

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA5.25.0

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.

M3000M 14.66
+62%
K2200M 9.05

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.

M3000M 5638
+62%
K2200M 3481

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.

M3000M 16611
+54%
K2200M 10787

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 HD60
+71.4%
35−40
−71.4%
4K32
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Elden Ring 45−50
+66.7%
27−30
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+77.8%
27−30
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+77.8%
27−30
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Dota 2 33
+83.3%
18−20
−83.3%
Elden Ring 45−50
+66.7%
27−30
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+80%
30−33
−80%
Fortnite 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+63.3%
30−33
−63.3%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+63.1%
65−70
−63.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+66.7%
27−30
−66.7%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%
World of Tanks 190−200
+73.6%
110−120
−73.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+77.8%
27−30
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Dota 2 50−55
+76.7%
30−33
−76.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+80%
30−33
−80%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+68.6%
35−40
−68.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+63.1%
65−70
−63.1%
Valorant 55−60
+65.7%
35−40
−65.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Elden Ring 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+70.7%
75−80
−70.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
World of Tanks 100−110
+71.7%
60−65
−71.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Valorant 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Dota 2 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Elden Ring 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Fortnite 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Valorant 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%

This is how M3000M and K2200M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 71% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 78% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.66 9.05
Recency 18 August 2015 19 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 65 Watt

M3000M has a 62% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K2200M, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.


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 M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Quadro K2200M

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.


3.8 358 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 39 votes

Rate Quadro K2200M 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.