NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and NVIDIA Quadro K2200M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 month(s) later
- Around 54% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 667 MHz
- Around 63% higher texture fill rate: 43.4 GTexel / s vs 26.68 GTexel / s
- Around 63% better floating-point performance: 1,389 gflops vs 853.8 gflops
- Around 64% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 631 vs 384
- Around 16% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12495 vs 10787
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5157 vs 4750
- Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 vs 3720
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 vs 3084
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5157 vs 4750
- Around 57% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 vs 3720
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 vs 3084
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 19 July 2014 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 667 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 43.4 GTexel / s vs 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 1,389 gflops vs 853.8 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 631 vs 384 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12495 vs 10787 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5157 vs 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 vs 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 vs 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5157 vs 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 vs 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 vs 3084 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
- Around 15% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3469 vs 2411
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3469 vs 2411 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2411 | 3469 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 631 | 384 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12495 | 10787 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.772 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 757.295 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.67 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.875 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 179.567 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5157 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5834 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7859 | 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5157 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5834 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7859 | 3084 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Code name | GM107 | GM107 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 19 July 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 475 | 540 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,389 gflops | 853.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 640 |
| Texture fill rate | 43.4 GTexel / s | 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3670
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon HD 8760 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGRID M60-2Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A vs
AMDRadeon Pro Vega 20
