Quadro K2200M vs T1200 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared T1200 Mobile and Quadro K2200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T1200 Mobile outperforms K2200M by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 324 | 537 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 15.03 | 9.98 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | no data | GM107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 April 2021 (4 years ago) | 19 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
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 | 1024 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 855 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1425 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt (35 - 95 Watt TGP) | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 26.68 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.8538 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 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.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 58
+142%
| 24−27
−142%
|
| 1440p | 32
+129%
| 14−16
−129%
|
| 4K | 90
+125%
| 40−45
−125%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+141%
|
27−30
−141%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
+122%
|
45−50
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+140%
|
30−33
−140%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+138%
|
60−65
−138%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+130%
|
100−105
−130%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Dota 2 | 114
+128%
|
50−55
−128%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
+122%
|
45−50
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+137%
|
30−33
−137%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+140%
|
30−33
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+137%
|
30−33
−137%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+138%
|
60−65
−138%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+140%
|
30−33
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+138%
|
60−65
−138%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−105
+122%
|
45−50
−122%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+130%
|
60−65
−130%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+127%
|
75−80
−127%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+123%
|
80−85
−123%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+140%
|
45−50
−140%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 109
+142%
|
45−50
−142%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
This is how T1200 Mobile and K2200M compete in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is 142% faster in 1080p
- T1200 Mobile is 129% faster in 1440p
- T1200 Mobile is 125% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.60 | 8.45 |
| Recency | 12 April 2021 | 19 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
T1200 Mobile has a 120.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
K2200M, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.
The T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
