AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 1219 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 5% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 68 Watt
• Around 40% higher memory clock speed: 7000 MHz vs 5012 MHz
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 46.988 vs 30.455
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3709 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 vs 1671
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3709 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 vs 1671

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Around 13% higher core clock speed: 1046 MHz vs 925 MHz
• Around 15% higher texture fill rate: 44.96 GTexel / s vs 39.01 GTexel / s
• Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512
• Around 15% better floating-point performance: 1,439 gflops vs 1,248 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 94% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3552 vs 1832
• Around 36% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 545 vs 402
• Around 18% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12020 vs 10229
• Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.695 vs 30.848
• Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.094 vs 438.581
• Around 41% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.205 vs 2.268
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 165.39 vs 139.235
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 vs 3241
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 vs 3241

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1832 3552
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	402 545
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10229 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.848 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	438.581 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.268 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	46.988 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	139.235 165.39
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3241 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3709 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3350 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3241 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3709 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3350 1671

Compare specifications (specs)