Quadro M2200 vs Quadro RTX 4000

Place in the ranking	110	424
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	37.13	no data
Power efficiency	17.11	13.86
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	TU104	GM206
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	13 November 2018 (6 years ago)	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$899	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2304	1024
Core clock speed	1005 MHz	695 MHz
Boost clock speed	1545 MHz	1036 MHz
Number of transistors	13,600 million	2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	222.5	66.30
Floating-point processing power	7.119 TFLOPS	2.122 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	144	64
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	no data

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1625 MHz	1377 MHz
Memory bandwidth	416.0 GB/s	88 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	3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C	No outputs
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	-	+
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 Ultimate (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	7.5	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.

RTX 4000 39.67
+259%

Quadro M2200 11.05

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.

RTX 4000 15255
+259%

Quadro M2200 4250

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.

RTX 4000 85864
+545%

Quadro M2200 13310

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

RTX 4000 78801
+412%

Quadro M2200 15377

GeekBench 5 CUDA

RTX 4000 94250
+636%

Quadro M2200 12812

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	150−160 +249%	43 −249%
4K	50−55 +257%	14 −257%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.99	no data
4K	17.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
World of Tanks	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Elden Ring	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
World of Tanks	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Fortnite	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

This is how RTX 4000 and Quadro M2200 compete in popular games:

RTX 4000 is 249% faster in 1080p
RTX 4000 is 257% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.67	11.05
Recency	13 November 2018	11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	55 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 259% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro M2200, on the other hand, has 190.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 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.