NVIDIA Quadro K2200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000M 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 1 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 74% higher core clock speed: 1046 MHz vs 601 MHz
• Around 47% lower typical power consumption: 68 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 67% higher memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 3000 MHz
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3570 vs 2806
• Around 52% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 548 vs 361
• 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12020 vs 5107
• Around 65% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.695 vs 24.713
• Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.205 vs 2.189
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.455 vs 28.929
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 166.26 vs 68.712
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 vs 4825
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 vs 4825

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

• Around 50% higher texture fill rate: 67.31 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• 2.1x more pipelines: 1344 vs 640
• Around 12% better floating-point performance: 1,615 gflops vs 1,439 gflops
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 685.1 vs 588.094
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3712 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 1671
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3712 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 1671

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3570 2806
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	548 361
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12020 5107
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	40.695 24.713
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	588.094 685.1
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.205 2.189
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.455 28.929
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	166.26 68.712
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4921 4825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1577 3712
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1671 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4921 4825
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1577 3712
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1671 3353

Compare specifications (specs)