Quadro K2200M vs Radeon R9 380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro K2200M, including specs and performance data.
R9 380 outperforms K2200M by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 351 | 487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.17 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.72 | 9.60 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Antigua | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 19 July 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 640 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 667 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.6 | 26.68 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.476 TFLOPS | 0.8538 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 40 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length / dual slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 80 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| 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.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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.
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.
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 | 65
+85.7%
| 35−40
−85.7%
|
| 4K | 25
+78.6%
| 14−16
−78.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.06 | no data |
| 4K | 7.96 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+86.7%
|
45−50
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+74.3%
|
70−75
−74.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+80%
|
110−120
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+86%
|
50−55
−86%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+86.7%
|
45−50
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+74.3%
|
70−75
−74.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+86%
|
50−55
−86%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+74.3%
|
70−75
−74.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+86.7%
|
45−50
−86.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+83.3%
|
60−65
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+82.5%
|
80−85
−82.5%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+78.8%
|
85−90
−78.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+82.2%
|
45−50
−82.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
This is how R9 380 and K2200M compete in popular games:
- R9 380 is 86% faster in 1080p
- R9 380 is 79% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.83 | 9.09 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 19 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 65 Watt |
R9 380 has a 74.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
K2200M, on the other hand, has 192.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
