Quadro M2200 vs M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 with Quadro M2200, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms M2200 by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 297 | 394 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.16 | 1.00 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | N17P-Q3 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | no data |
| Current price | $314 (0.4x MSRP) | $1967 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M4000 has 1016% 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 | 1664 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 694 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1870 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 66.30 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,573 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M4000 and Quadro M2200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 5508 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 88 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 5.2 |
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.
M4000 outperforms M2200 by 57% based on our aggregate 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%
M4000 outperforms M2200 by 57% 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%
M4000 outperforms M2200 by 41% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
M4000 outperforms M2200 by 27% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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%
M4000 outperforms M2200 by 30% 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 | 65−70
+51.2%
| 43
−51.2%
|
| 4K | 18−21
+38.5%
| 13
−38.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
This is how Quadro M4000 and Quadro M2200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M4000 is 51% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M4000 is 38% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.28 | 11.01 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 13 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 55 Watt |
The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation one.
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.
