NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile vs AMD Radeon R9 285
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile and AMD Radeon R9 285 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 - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 12% higher core clock speed: 1025 MHz vs 918 MHz
- 3.5x lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 190 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3043
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3043
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 2782
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 2782
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 11 January 2017 vs 2 September 2014 |
Core clock speed | 1025 MHz vs 918 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt vs 190 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 2782 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 285
- Around 57% higher texture fill rate: 102.8 GTexel / s vs 65.6 GTexel / s
- Around 75% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1024
- Around 57% better floating-point performance: 3,290 gflops vs 2,099 gflops
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 597 vs 383
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 vs 4286
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6474 vs 6337
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6474 vs 6337
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 102.8 GTexel / s vs 65.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1792 vs 1024 |
Floating-point performance | 3,290 gflops vs 2,099 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 597 vs 383 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 vs 4286 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6474 vs 6337 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6474 vs 6337 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile | AMD Radeon R9 285 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 383 | 597 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4286 | 6680 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 16429 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6337 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6337 | 6474 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 2782 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 2782 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 71.777 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.359 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 390.891 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2778 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro M2200 Mobile | AMD Radeon R9 285 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |
Code name | GM206 | Tonga |
Launch date | 11 January 2017 | 2 September 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 469 | 448 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1025 MHz | 918 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 2,099 gflops | 3,290 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 1024 | 1792 |
Texture fill rate | 65.6 GTexel / s | 102.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 190 Watt |
Transistor count | 2,940 million | 5,000 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 221 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 88 GB / s | 176.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5500 MHz | 5500 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |