M2200 vs P1000

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

Quadro P1000
11.50
+4.1%

P1000 outperforms M2200 by 4% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking379388
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money7.551.06
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGP107N17P-Q3
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date1 February 2017 (7 years old)13 January 2017 (7 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$375 no data
Current price$301 (0.8x MSRP)$1967
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P1000 has 612% better value for money than Quadro M2200.

Technical specs

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 cores6401024
Core clock speed1493 MHz694 MHz
Boost clock speed1519 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million1870 Million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2066.30
Floating-point performance1,894 gflopsno data

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro P1000 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz5508 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.19 GB/s88 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Stereono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.21.1.126
CUDA6.15.2

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.

Quadro P1000 11.50
+4.1%
Quadro M2200 11.05

P1000 outperforms M2200 by 4% in our combined 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%

Quadro P1000 4456
+4%
Quadro M2200 4285

P1000 outperforms M2200 by 4% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro P1000 24240
Quadro M2200 24622
+1.6%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 2% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro P1000 6001
Quadro M2200 7372
+22.8%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 23% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Quadro P1000 4787
Quadro M2200 5850
+22.2%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 22% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Quadro P1000 30721
Quadro M2200 37796
+23%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 23% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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%

Quadro P1000 14151
+8.9%
Quadro M2200 12989

P1000 outperforms M2200 by 9% 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%

Quadro P1000 12967
Quadro M2200 16055
+23.8%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 24% 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%

Quadro P1000 14286
+11.5%
Quadro M2200 12812

P1000 outperforms M2200 by 12% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 42
Quadro M2200 47
+10.9%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 87
+0.5%
Quadro M2200 86

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 56
Quadro M2200 58
+4.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 4% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 54
Quadro M2200 72
+33.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 33% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 57
Quadro M2200 69
+20%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 15
Quadro M2200 25
+65.1%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 65% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 27
Quadro M2200 33
+19.7%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P1000 4
Quadro M2200 5
+33.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 33% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 27
Quadro M2200 33
+19.7%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 42
Quadro M2200 47
+10.9%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 54
Quadro M2200 72
+33.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 33% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 87
+0.5%
Quadro M2200 86

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 56
Quadro M2200 58
+4.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 4% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 57
Quadro M2200 69
+20%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 20% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 15
Quadro M2200 25
+65.1%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 65% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P1000 3.9
Quadro M2200 5.2
+33.3%

M2200 outperforms P1000 by 33% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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 HD45
+0%
45
+0%
4K11
−27.3%
14
+27.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 32
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
Hitman 3 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 29
+3.6%
27−30
−3.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
Hitman 3 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−23.3%
37
+23.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Far Cry 5 27
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
−25%
20
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Hitman 3 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Hitman 3 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−30%
13
+30%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Quadro P1000 and Quadro M2200 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • Quadro M2200 is 0% faster than Quadro P1000

4K resolution:

  • Quadro M2200 is 27.3% faster than Quadro P1000

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P1000 is 100% faster than the Quadro M2200.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M2200 is 30% faster than the Quadro P1000.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P1000 is ahead in 50 tests (74%)
  • Quadro M2200 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 14 tests (21%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 11.50 11.05
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 55 Watt

We couldn't decide between Quadro P1000 and Quadro M2200. The differences in performance seem too small.

Be aware that Quadro P1000 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.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P1000
Quadro P1000
NVIDIA Quadro M2200
Quadro M2200

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 454 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro P1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 264 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.