Quadro P2200 vs T1000

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Quadro T1000
2019
17.05

P2200 outperforms T1000 by 41% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary Details

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

Place in performance ranking295210
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation8.6032.25
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTU117GP106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date27 May 2019 (4 years ago)10 June 2019 (4 years ago)
Current price$920 $409

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2200 has 275% better value for money than Quadro T1000.

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 coresno data1280
Core clock speed1395 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1455 MHz1493 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data119.4

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data201 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory typeno dataGDDR5X
Maximum RAM amountno data5 GB
Memory bus widthno data160 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz10008 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data200.2 GB/s

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 outputs4x DisplayPort

API Compatibility

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

DirectX12.0 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkanno data1.2.131
CUDAno data6.1

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 T1000 17.05
Quadro P2200 24.08
+41.2%

P2200 outperforms T1000 by 41% based on our aggregated 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 T1000 6599
Quadro P2200 9322
+41.3%

P2200 outperforms T1000 by 41% 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%

Quadro T1000 33857
+7.5%
Quadro P2200 31487

T1000 outperforms P2200 by 8% 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 T1000 30340
Quadro P2200 31016
+2.2%

P2200 outperforms T1000 by 2% 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 T1000 34236
+14.2%
Quadro P2200 29989

T1000 outperforms P2200 by 14% 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.

Pros & Cons Summary


Performance score 17.05 24.08
Chip lithography 12 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 75 Watt

The Quadro P2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 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 T1000
Quadro T1000
NVIDIA Quadro P2200
Quadro P2200

Comparisons with Similar GPUs

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 rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 295 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 307 votes

Rate Quadro P2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & Сomments

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