NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 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 NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 5 month(s) later
• Around 27% higher core clock speed: 1046 MHz vs 823 MHz
• Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
• Around 14% better floating-point performance: 1,439 gflops vs 1,263.4 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 68 Watt vs 170 Watt
• 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 4008 MHz
• Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3564 vs 3059
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 546 vs 434
• Around 12% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12020 vs 10723
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.695 vs 31.935
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.094 vs 539.966
• Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.205 vs 2.344
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 166.26 vs 64.308
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 vs 4184
• Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 vs 4184
• 3.1x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1193 vs 389

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

• Around 17% higher texture fill rate: 52.7 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.841 vs 30.455
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3683 vs 1577
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3333 vs 1671
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3683 vs 1577
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3333 vs 1671

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3564 3059
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	546 434
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12020 10723
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	40.695 31.935
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	588.094 539.966
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.205 2.344
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.455 35.841
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	166.26 64.308
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4921 4184
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1577 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1671 3333
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4921 4184
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1577 3683
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1671 3333
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	1193 389

Compare specifications (specs)