NVIDIA GeForce MX450 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX450 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 - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/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 NVIDIA GeForce MX450
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1395 MHz vs 667 MHz
- 3778.1x more texture fill rate: 100.8 GTexel/s vs 26.68 GTexel / s
- Around 40% higher pipelines: 896 vs 640
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 30% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 65 Watt
- 2x more memory clock speed: 10002 MHz vs 5012 MHz
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3735 vs 3469
- 2.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 29285 vs 10787
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6326 vs 4750
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3354 vs 3084
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6326 vs 4750
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3354 vs 3084
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 Aug 2020 vs 19 July 2014 |
Core clock speed | 1395 MHz vs 667 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 100.8 GTexel/s vs 26.68 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 896 vs 640 |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 65 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 10002 MHz vs 5012 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3735 vs 3469 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 29285 vs 10787 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6326 vs 4750 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 vs 3084 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6326 vs 4750 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 vs 3084 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
- Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 384 vs 304
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 384 vs 304 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 vs 3710 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 vs 3710 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX450
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 MX450 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3735 | 3469 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 384 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 29285 | 10787 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 849.116 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6326 | 4750 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3720 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3084 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6326 | 4750 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3720 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3084 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2065 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce MX450 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |
Code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | GM107 |
Launch date | 1 Aug 2020 | 19 July 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 546 | 544 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 667 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 896 | 640 |
Texture fill rate | 100.8 GTexel/s | 26.68 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 65 Watt |
Transistor count | 4700 million | 1,870 million |
Floating-point performance | 853.8 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.5 | 5 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | 80 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 10002 MHz | 5012 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus | ||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management |