Quadro K2200 vs P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Quadro K2200, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms Quadro K2200 by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 237 | 445 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.21 | 3.08 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N17E-Q3 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $395.75 |
| Current price | $1053 (1.3x MSRP) | $313 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
P4000 Mobile has 102% better value for money than Quadro K2200.
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 | 1792 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 44.96 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,398 gflops | 1,439 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro P4000 Mobile and Quadro K2200 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 202 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 6006 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 80.19 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 5.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.48 | 9.19 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 22 July 2014 |
| Cost | $819.61 | $395.75 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 68 Watt |
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K2200 is a 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.
