Quadro M2200 vs Radeon PRO W7500

Place in the ranking	128	423
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	no data
Power efficiency	36.35	13.73
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Navi 33	GM206
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$429	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	1792	1024
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	695 MHz
Boost clock speed	1700 MHz	1036 MHz
Number of transistors	13,300 million	2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	190.4	66.30
Floating-point processing power	12.19 TFLOPS	2.122 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	112	64
Ray Tracing Cores	28	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 4.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	216 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1344 MHz	1377 MHz
Memory bandwidth	172.0 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1	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_2)	12
Shader Model	6.7	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
CUDA	-	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.

PRO W7500 37.13
+237%

Quadro M2200 11.02

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.

PRO W7500 14311
+237%

Quadro M2200 4248

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	140−150 +218%	44 −218%
4K	45−50 +221%	14 −221%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.06	no data
4K	9.53	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

This is how PRO W7500 and Quadro M2200 compete in popular games:

PRO W7500 is 218% faster in 1080p
PRO W7500 is 221% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.13	11.02
Recency	3 August 2023	11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	55 Watt

PRO W7500 has a 236.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro M2200, on the other hand, has 27.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 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.