NVIDIA Quadro P1000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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 P1000

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 21% higher core clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 1046 MHz
• Around 32% higher boost clock speed: 1480 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Around 32% higher texture fill rate: 59.2 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• Around 32% better floating-point performance: 1,894 gflops vs 1,439 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 45% lower typical power consumption: 47 Watt vs 68 Watt
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4500 vs 3572
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 590 vs 548
• Around 30% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15667 vs 12020
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 71.86 vs 40.695
• Around 42% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 832.248 vs 588.094
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.039 vs 3.205
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.117 vs 30.455
• Around 47% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 245.081 vs 166.26
• Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6796 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3348 vs 1671
• Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6796 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3348 vs 1671
• Around 33% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1591 vs 1193

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4500 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	590 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	15667 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	71.86 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	832.248 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.039 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	65.117 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	245.081 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6796 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3702 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3348 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6796 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3702 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3348 1671
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	1591 1193

Compare specifications (specs)